Two of Six

Yesterday the sermon for our church was on gay marriage.  The preacher was making a point about homosexual marriage undermining true marriage, during which he showed a picture of six children from on the Bible classes and asked what their future would be in a country with gay marriage.

What struck me as interesting was that I immediately recognized two of the six children as belonging to unwed mothers.  These are not women who are widowed or deserted by unfaithful husbands, nor are they victims of rape.  Each of the women in question chose to engage in sex and procreation without the benefit of marriage.

This led me to think about the message in a somewhat different light than that which the preacher intended.  Yes, I understand that homosexuality is a sin and that gay marriage is an oxymoron.  Yet when one third of the children in a random sample of your Bible class are illegitimate, perhaps there is another, more pressing problem.  Our preacher stated that “gay marriage” will lead to the dissolution of marriage.  Yet in a country where the divorce rate is fifty per cent, and one half of all live births to women under age thirty are bastards, perhaps we have already seen the dissolution of marriage.

Will gay marriage destroy traditional marriage in the United States?  No, because traditional marriage has already been destroyed.  No fault divorce, the acceptance of illegitimacy and its funding at taxpayer expense, and a culture which claims to be “Christian” yet still ignores Christ’s admonition “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” have already seen to the demise of “traditional marriage” for most of our society.  Gay marriage certainly won’t help, but it’s coming along too late to destroy heterosexual marriage.  American family law has already done that.

Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day

Today is blog about Brett Kimberlin day.  The terrorist Brett Kimberlin is a convicted felon, who, although he was sentenced to fifty (50) years in federal prison for the Speedway Bombing spree in the late 70s served only seventeen (17) years.  Please note that Kimberlin committed other felonies besides the Speedway Bombings, yet remains free today.  Kimberlin has been using his freedom to promote left wing propaganda funded by George Soros on a couple of blogs I will not do him the courtesy of naming here.  For a more thorough history of Kimberlin and his current nefarious activities please check out Robert Stacy McCain’s blog here:  http://theothermccain.com/

Yes, God Really Does Hate Divorce

I recently came across an article by a fellow named Joel Davisson who passes himself off as a Christian counselor who ministers to other Christians about their marriages.  Having read the article in its entirety, I can say a few things about it and its author.  First of all, Joel Davisson is a heretic, and, if his wife Kathy does indeed act as he claims, she is a false prophetess.  There are several markers of heresy throughout the article, and they begin quite early, so let’s break it down.  (The web address for the article is http://joelandkathy.invisionzone.com/index.php?/topic/392-about-divorce-by-joel-and-kathy/ ).

First of all, Joel wants us to know that God’s hatred for divorce “is NOT the central message of Malachi 2.”  Now I’ve read Malachi 2 quite a few times, and this certainly comes as a surprise to me.  How did Joel come to this epiphany?  Well, simply, his wife is a prophetess and she had a revelation:

“Years ago, Kathy experienced a rage. It lasted one day. She was totally confused as to where this rage came from and what it was all about. That evening, while we were ministering, (this was in our early years, when the marriage was rough) God spoke to Kathy and said, �The anger that you feel is what I feel about divorce. I hate divorce.� The word-picture was perfect for the message that we were sharing that night (even though our marriage was having severe troubles!) Instantly, the anger lifted and Kathy shared the experience with those in attendance.”

Now this seems a bit surprising to me.  After all, Elijah never had a prophecy that contradicted previously written scripture, nor did Isaiah, or Ezekiel, or Daniel, or Jeremiah.  Most telling of all, Christ Himself never contradicted revealed scripture, stating that “not one jot or one tittle” would pass away until all was fulfilled.  Does Kathy believe that she is a greater prophet than any of these?  Yes, I am aware that the specific words above do not exactly contradict Malachi, but the rest of the article, which is supposed to be based on the new understanding Kathy received through her own, personal, special revelation, directly refutes Malachi.

Concerning Malachi 2, Joel then states:

“There is not ONE SINGLE MESSAGE to wives in this passage.

God is NOT addressing a wife who has been treated treacherously.

He is NOT telling wives that they must stay faithful to their covenant of marriage if their husbands are treating them treacherously.”

Well, no, the message was to men.  Because under the Law of Moses ONLY MEN were allowed to divorce.  Women were never granted the right to do so.  Apparently Joel is unaware of this fact, or perhaps it is simply inconvenient to his argument.

Now Joel goes on at length about the fact this passage deals with wives who were treated treacherously by their husbands, which is true insofar as it goes.  But how does Joel suggest this treachery was manifested? 

“The message is this: �Men, quit treating your wives poorly. Quit abusing them. Quit discarding their feelings. Quit yelling at and controlling them. Quit committing adultery. Quit looking at pornography. Quit being alcoholics, drug addicts, workaholics and quit putting ministry and other things above your wife. Why? Because if you do not quit treating your wife treacherously, you are going to end up divorced �”and God hates divorce. You are going to end up divorced �” and it is going to be YOUR fault.�”

Where to begin?  First of all, Malachi states clearly what he means by treachery in vv. 14-16.  The men of Israel were putting away (divorcing) their faithful Israelite wives and marrying foreign women.  This is the sum total of Malachi’s indictment of treachery.  Nothing about “discarding their feelings” (really Joel?), “yelling at and controlling them” (Husbands who control their wives are treacherous?  Which version of the Bible says that?), “workaholics” (Joel, REALLY?).  All of which is topped off with “you are going to end up divorced” (note the passive tense…..  Joel is teaching that the wife is authorized to divorce for these “reasons” but he doesn’t have the ….. er….um… spine to say it.) 

Well, NO, that is not what Malachi said, not even close.  First of all, the men in this passage were not going to “end up divorced” unless they did the divorcing.  The wife could not divorce her husband under the Law of Moses.  Joel entirely re-defines “treachery” from what Malachi said to create a system wherein a wife is justified in divorcing her husband if he is guilty of “discarding her feelings” or “controlling” her.  I suppose Kathy is totally out of Joel’s control and he subjects himself to her feelings in that matter.  What a real man you are, Joel. 

Now Joel makes his coup de grace with this gem:

“Men, obey the Word: Quit dealing treacherously with your wives. Why? Because if you don�t, you are going to end up divorced �” and God hates divorce. We are not going to applaud you as a great man of God anymore if you cannot keep one little wife happy.�”

Now remember, by Joel’s definition “treachery” includes “discarding” your wife’s feelings.  The final line here tells us the REAL thinking behind this… you are not a “great man of God” if you “cannot keep one little wife happy.”  Joel’s definition of a “great man of God” is someone who “keeps one little wife happy.”  Okay then…..

Obviously Job was not a great man of God, regardless of what the Bible says.  Certainly Moses’ wife was unhappy with him, and yet he still put his ministry ahead of her feelings, so Moses is not a great man of God.  Even Eve was dissatisfied with the Garden of Eden, so I suppose Joel thinks God is also a failure.  Or maybe Joel just didn’t think this through?

Now what about Kathy?  We learn all we need to know about Kathy in Revelation 2:20-23.  She is a false prophetess who seduces women to commit fornication by preaching a false gospel of easy divorce.  She calls herself a prophetess, but she prophecies by the spirit of Jezebel, not the Holy Spirit.  If she does not repent it is clear what her end will be, as well as that of those who follow her. 

No, Joel and Kathy are not Christians, and their “ministry” is not in the service of Jesus Christ or His Gospel.  They are servants of Satan, prophesying through  the spirit of Jezebel, troubling the church and those most in need of help.  Mark them as the dogs and sorcerers that they are and avoid them.

Money’s Too Tight To Mention

One of the top predictors of divorce is the level of disagreement between spouses over money.  Apparently this is a better predictor of divorce than even such problems as infidelity, abuse, and addiction.  One wonders why this is the case, who is to blame, and what to do about it (or at least this one does so).  Why are so many marriages today falling apart over money issues?

In a word, covetousness, which the apostle Paul describes as idolatry (Col. 3:5).  Our culture (early 21st century United States) is, unfortunately, rampant with covetousness.  On the other hand, this has been the case with pretty much every culture through human history, so why should we expect to be any different?  Contrary to popular belief, poor people are just as prone to covetousness as are the rich.  Our wars are fought over covetousness (James 4).  This is not to say all sides in a war are fighting because the are covetous (there is such a thing as a just war when resisting evil), but when a war is being fought you can be assured the “root cause” is that someone wanted to take something (land, oil, gold, shipping lanes, slaves) that belonged to someone else.

A common (and mistaken) meme among many alleged “Christian” marriage counselors is that women do not succumb to lust, which is, rather, a masculine fault.  Now bear in mind that Paul attributes lusts (including those against nature) to women in Romans 1.  Lust, including sexual lust, is a path of temptation for both genders.  The mistake lies in thinking that since women experience lust in response to different stimuli than do men that women are not subject to temptation from sexual lust.

All of which is said to say this:  Men are (sexually) attracted to women with certain physical attributes, whereas women are often attracted (sexually included) to men with certain financial characteristics.  Protest all you wish, but denying the reality of the nature of the world around us will not help to overcome that world and the temptations it holds.

Risk averse

Contract theory includes a principle known as “information asymmetry” in which one party entering the contract has access to information the other party does not and uses this information to gain an unfair advantage.  High levels of information asymmetry eventually lead to market failure and economic collapse since individuals realize that they cannot make a bargain in good faith.  Typically, in a lawful society, the government steps in to prevent this through regulation of the dissemination of information regarding contracts.  Hence, there are consumer protections (lemon laws concerning automobiles, for example) and legal sanctions (criminal charges for insider trading) to prevent unscrupulous actors from using information asymmetry to defraud others and in so doing eventually crash the entire system. 

The current state of marriage law in the United States, however, is one area where this well understood and established economic theory is not rationally exercised.  The various states recognize that marriage is a contract, yet through the wonders of “no fault” divorce laws information asymmetry is not only allowed to occur, it is actually encouraged. 

Suppose a man and a woman enter into a marriage contract.  Now suppose that the woman in question decides she no longer wishes to honor the contract.  Not much of a leap, is it?  But wait a minute… Didn’t she swear this contract was “until death do us part”?  If she decides otherwise, or for that matter even uses the threat of divorce inside the marriage, what you have is an example of information asymmetry.  Party A, the husband, entered into the contract with a full expectation that barring a narrow set of circumstances (infidelity, perhaps) the contract was binding.  In point of fact, he almost certainly received both verbal and written confirmation in front of a number of witnesses attesting this to be the fact by Party B, the wife.  Yet Party B, the wife, actually had no intent of honoring these terms.  This is a classic example of information asymmetry.  One party signed the contract agreeing to a set of terms, while the other party signed on knowing full well the terms would never be honored.

One might point out that this does not apply simply to divorce.  Party A may have signed on expecting that Party B would share the marital bed in a conjugal fashion, whereas party B has determined that such will not be the case.  There are other examples as well, such as finances, employment, child rearing, etc.  The fact of the matter is that Party B may enter into the contract stating any number of things which she well knows to be untrue. 

Unique to our contract law, however, is that Party B not only will not be punished for the use of asymmetrical information, she will be rewarded.  This is well established legal doctrine in U.S. divorce courts.  But what is the end result of this type of action?

As divorce rates have risen, we see that there has been a corresponding decrease in marriage rates.  Men simply are not willing to get married.  The reason is completely predictable under the economic theory in question here.  Men are becoming more and more risk averse because the risk to reward ration is so violently skewed against them under the current system.  Their rewards for marriage are becoming more limited.  Sex may be withheld (and often is) by wives who are displeased with them for any reason, whereas since the sexual revolution took place single men may seek out any number of sexual partners without the stigma once attached.  A man who marries must do so knowing that he puts his career, earnings, savings, property and retirement at great risk the moment he says “I do”. 

The result is a system crash.  Young men opt out of marriage because it contains enormous perceived risk and little perceived benefit.  This is entirely the fault of a “no fault” divorce system that actively encourages and rewards behavior which would be criminal in any other type of contract.  The only way that the current trend of young men avoiding marriage can be reversed is by reversing the current cost benefit analysis they are working under, and that will require a complete change in our nation’s divorce laws.  In other words, don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen. 

That’s so happy….

Well, we now have our first President to publicly endorse “gay marriage”.  I suppose one could wish that President Obama wants everyone who is married to be happy, but I’m not sure that’s it. 

How, one might ask, does a culture go from homosexuality being illegal to homosexual “marriage” being endorsed by the President in one generation?  The answer is not simply that our culture has grown more tolerant of homosexuality.  The fact is that our culture first devalued marriage, and this devaluation of marriage has led us to the precipice of mono-genital nuptials. 

The introduction of “no fault” divorce led to a society that values student loans more than marriage. If you think that sounds strange, consider this:  Unless you are completely disabled you cannot discharge student loans in a bankruptcy.  No matter how talented your legal representation may be, student loans are the ultimate legally binding contract in our society.  Now suppose, instead, you decide you want to tear up the marriage license you paid for at the county courthouse after a couple of years… No problem, no fault.  In a sane society would we really make student loan payments more important than family integrity? 

Once marriage became disposable, it quickly became less important.  Without legal sanction or social stigma to prevent it, divorce spread through our nation like a flesh-eating bacteria.  In point of fact, not only is divorce not stigmatized, it is even celebrated….  (Try doing a search for “divorce party” if you can stomach it).  Our legal system failed marriage, and our churches have fallen all over themselves to be the most accommodating places around for divorcees… And of course you cannot accommodate divorcees without doing the same for divorce itself, and never mind what that musty old Bible says about “repentance”. 

Which has what, exactly, to do with gay marriage?  A large swath of the population in our country today puts no value whatsoever on marriage, straight, gay or other.  The ability of a small minority to use the courts in some of our more liberal states to enact “gay marriage” by edict would not be possible if people in general were not so apathetic about marriage in general.  And people would not be apathetic about marriage were it a real, genuine, life-long commitment between two people.  Until the law and the church return to marriage as a binding contract we will continue to see the institution “re-defined” out of existence, and no one will be gay about that….

“Sacrificial” Love

A friend of mine has in the past served as an elder and evangelist.  He recently stepped down as an elder, but continues to work as an evangelist with a congregation not too far from where I live. The circumstances under which he resigned as an elder, yet continues to serve as an evangelist are quite simple:  He found out his wife of approximately thirty years was having an affair. 

As it turns out, not only was his wife having an affair, but the man with whom she was having the affair was also a member of the church where my friend works.  When the affair was discovered my friend’s wife not only failed to deny it, she continued in it, and does so to this day (it’s been a little over two years now).  This led to the dissolution of the marriage of the man with whom she was having the affair, and to both of them being “disfellowshipped” (read out or excommunicated) from the church. 

As it stands so far the story is disturbing but all too common.  I fear the situation has been made worse, however, due to the fact that my friend refuses to file for divorce.  His wife has moved out, openly flaunts the fact that she is engaged in sexual relationships with other men, and puts a public shame to the work my friend has tried to accomplish.  She makes no pretense of remorse or repentance, and gives every indication of enjoying her lifestyle as the town pump.  She is, in other words, the adulteress who unashamedly wipes her mouth and says she has done no wrong. 

The fact that my friend refuses to divorce her is a source of consternation for many within the congregation where he works.  Yet not only will he not file for divorce, he continues to meet with his wife on “dates”, apparently in the hope of winning back her love.  I have actually run into them in a restaurant while out with my wife.  At first I thought they must have reconciled, but then they made me aware they were just out together. 

My friend’s behavior is, quite frankly, pathological.  He has ignored the dictate of Paul to the Corinthians “not to eat with such a one.”  He is “dating” his own wife while she services any number of other men at will.  It is a sick relationship both spiritually and psychologically.  Yet none of this is what troubles me most.

What troubles me most is other friends who work as preachers holding this man up as an example of “sacrificial love.”  Because he tolerates his wife’s adultery and refuses to be done with her he is held up as a positive role model.  It’s enough to make me puke.  It seems that I remember a time when a husband’s sacrificial love meant working hard to support his family, enduring physical hardship, pain and danger to meet his wife and children’s needs, standing up for the truth in God’s word and teaching his family to do the same, and providing a model of hard work and discipline to his children.  Now some of my Christian brethren seem to think actively enabling your wife to be a common slut rises to the same level.

Christ’s church is His bride.  Yet Christ warned several churches that he would “divorce” them as it were in John’s letters to the seven churches in Asia found in the first part of Revelation.  The Hebrew writer warns us that every son who is received will be scourged (Heb. 12).  We are commanded to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove (expose) them.”  How is any of this consistent with actively enabling a spouse who lives a hedonistic lifestyle and divides the church and other families?  I fear the only thing my friend is “sacrificing” is the peace of the congregation he is duty bound to protect, and all to pursue a woman who openly humiliates him (and seems to enjoy doing so).  This is not “sacrificial love.”  This is a failure of leadership, and the fact that other church leaders hold it up as a positive example speaks volumes about the the state of the “stand” Christians are taking on marriage in our country today. 

Who’s Your Baby Daddy?

An observation from things I have seen in the congregation I attend over the last few years:  Young, single women have a child out of wedlock.  Then they begin to want to marry a “good” man.  The “good” men in question have little desire to marry the young women.  Since the requisite “good” man is not willing, the young woman in question starts a new relationship with any man who will have her…. and soon has another illegitimate child. 

What I have seen first hand in these cases is a downward spiral of depression for the mother and poverty for the entire family.  Three cases in my own congregation come to mind.  The first young woman (no longer young now) has three children by at least two different fathers although she has never been married.  Both of the fathers in question are criminals (she acknowledges that she knows at least one to be a drug dealer) and neither provides any support of any type to his children.  Her life now consists of welfare, section 8 housing, disability applications and near suicidal depression.  Throughout all of this she blames the church for letting her down.

Young woman number two has two children, both by different fathers.  As with woman one, she has never been married.  She is fortunate in that she has received considerable support from her family, and she does still attend church services (although she has been involved in at least one fracas which has caused another member of the congregation to leave and go elsewhere). 

Young woman number three was at least married for a time.  As with number one, however, her husband is a drug dealer and has since abandoned her and their three children.  She knew he was a criminal when she got together with him, but she was “in love” and did not care.  She now lives in abject poverty and has completely stopped attending church. 

These are not the only three I could come up with, and this is only in one relatively small congregation.  Each of these women chose men whom they knew were not Christians.  Each of these women chose to have children with men whom they knew were morally corrupt.  Each of these women has done this repeatedly. 

What does the future hold?  I would guess that none of them will ever find a “good” man who will consider them for marriage.  It is almost certain that many of the children of these women will end up in prison or dead at an early age.  I believe one of the biggest reasons for this is that young women raised as Christians today are rarely told that they MUST marry a Christian man if they wish to have a good home.  Perhaps it is “recommended”, but rarely is it stressed as a necessity.  Rather than choosing to be the kind of woman a “good” man would want to marry, each of these women sought out excitement and an “Alpha” who would make them feel good for a night.  And now each of these women has condemned her children to a fatherless upbringing. 

Why are Christians ok with divorce until they’re involved?

First off, I am changing the names to protect the guilty (andE maybe avoid a lawsuit).  I’ve noticed a disturbing characteristic in many “traditional” churches when it comes to divorce:  The leadership and members are completely opposed to the idea, until one of their own is involved, at which point they have an epiphany that divorce is okay, at least in this instance.

Although I’ve seen this happen many times over the years, it really came home to me when my cousin recently divorced her husband.  My cousin (we’ll call her “W”) was married to “E”, a decent, church-going Christian man who has a good career and was a good provider for his family.  W and E have two sons, both still school age and at home.  At some point W took a job as a secretary for a local businessman who is (allegedly) a millionaire.  The businessman had a wife and family of his own as well, yet at some point W and her boss decided they just had to be together in EVERY way possible.

W (my cousin, mind you) decided that even though her husband E was a good man and they had two children at home, she just had to run off with her boss.  No accusations of adultery, abuse, addiction or anything else on the part of E, mind you, she just wanted a new man.  As a result two marriages (and two families) were destroyed.

W was eventually dis-fellowshipped by her local congregation (“read out” or “excommunicated” would be similar ideas depending on the church in question).  Good for them.

Now comes my issue:  My family continues to have W and her new Sugar Daddy to family gatherings and social events.  Mind you, they are well aware of what Paul says in I Corinthians about “with such a one know not to eat,” yet they continue to invite the two horndogs to various functions.  My wife and I have decided that we cannot and will not attend social functions with these two due to their sociopathic sexual practices.  Which means that W, who broke up her home and exposes her children to rampant sexual chaos, is welcome, and anyone who objects (my family) is not at family gatherings.  I know that a man’s foes will those of his own household, so I suppose this should come as no surprise.

The point I wish to make here, however, is that as long as families, friends and churches continue to welcome those openly practicing adultery into fellowship while shunning anyone opposed to the practice (in effect inverting the teachings of Paul) then we should not be surprised and the continuing trend of more and more adultery and divorce in “traditional” churches.  Shunning may not be enjoyable, but if a sexual sociopath is comfortable in your company then you are the one with the problem.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com! This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.

Happy blogging!