John H Armstrong

Can a Married Man Have an Emotional Bond with a Woman Who is Not His Wife?

As I read the tragic news about Governor Mark Sanford’s disappearance to Argentina a few months ago, for what we now know was the pursuit of a sexual relationship with another woman, I was forced to ask again a question that has troubled me for many years. (By the way, Sanford is under perpetual fire to resign as governor but remains in office. Personally I wish he would resign since he was such an outspoken critic of Bill Clinton and, more importantly, his effectiveness as governor has been under severe fire from the day his adultery was revealed in June.)

My question is really quite simple: Can a married man have a deeply personal relationship with another woman?

Let me begin by saying there is no obvious biblical answer to this question. If this were so clear we would not need to think about it all that much. I have seen some very good arguments made on both sides of this debate. But I am more convinced than ever, after reading the Mark Sanford story, that the answer I lean toward is a rather strong no. 

When the Mark Sanford story broke he spoke of his developing a relationship with a dear, dear friend from Argentina. Sanford appears to be a serious Christian. He said, in his press conference, that “There are moral absolutes.” He acknowledged his sin and asked for forgiveness. He pledged to work on restoring his marriage. I have prayed for this to happen.

What moved me was how Sanford described this relationship with the woman in Argentina. He said the affair started innocently (most do) but then escalated (also not new). He had known this woman for more than a year, having met her on an economic development trip to Argentina. Sanford’s wife, Jenny, had known of the affair for five months. She said that she had asked him to leave two weeks before the revelation was made public. The governor expressed a desire to reconcile with his wife. She responded in a marvelous manner and said he had earned a chance to resurrect their marriage. She said, “The trial separation was agreed to with the goal of ultimately strengthening our marriage.”

The news gave the contents of two emails the governor has sent to his lover in Argentina. These were written on July 4, 2008. (This means the relationship was relatively young and developing at that time.) Sanford refers to his deep love for her and to various expressions about her physical appearance and his response to her. He ends one by saying, “Last Friday I would have stayed embracing and kissing you forever.”

Now, here is my central concern as I read this sad story. Men are visual and express their emotions in ways consistent with visual perception. This visual response is deeply rooted in male sexuality. Women generally appreciate the words that men speak to them in ways that men do not always grasp. Words touch the heart of a woman in ways that are often very different from the way they reach into the heart of a man. I understand that certain men and certain women are different but these patterns are generally true. We are sexual beings. This is obvious.

This being said I do not think a married man can treasure a deep emotional bond for a woman that is not his wife. Such a bond will almost always lead to a sexual response that leads the man to say and do things that pursue the woman in ways unhealthy to his marriage. My wife has told me this for years. I have sometimes argued with her but I believe she is right. I have long thought that she was. If Governor Sanford had believed this way he would never have developed a close, private friendship with this woman in Argentina. And if he had never formed a close, private friendship with her he would never have fallen sexually. This seems self-evident to me but then I am biased toward preserving my wonderful marriage of nearly 39 years.

Understanding the Mystery of Christian Marriage, Part Five

In this, my final look at Paul’s instruction about marriage in Ephesians 5:21–33, I want to look more closely at what I believe is the central quality of Christian love. Without love no marriage can succeed for long. And Christian love is the real basis for Christian marriage. Without this love no marriage can be truly Christian.

Surely you have noticed that non-Christians can and do have great marriages. And you have also surely noticed that many Christians do not have great marriages. While it is true that Christians have the hope and grace to have a great marriage it is not true that they always do. In fact, some statistics suggest that divorce is as high, if not higher, among Christians as among non-Christians. One reason could be that non-Christians are not marrying as often in modern culture. Either way Christian divorce is much, much too high. Please note that I did not say Christians should never divorce, or that they can never remarry. This is something for another day but divorce is permitted in the teaching of the New Testament. The Protestant Reformers got this right and thus restored the teaching of the Scripture at this point. Annulment creates a great burden that involves the church in practice that is not helpful. I would not say this means sin should be ignored or that church discipline is never necessary in some cases. (Whatever the practice, care and compassion must be linked to the pursuit of the truth.)

Paul says that Christ gave himself up for the church (5:25). He found us in our sins and took charge. He exercised authority over us. Thank God he did. But please note that this exercise of authority led him to the ultimate display of love: he gave up his life to purify us (5:26–27). He made us holy “by baptism in the Word” (5:26). In the ritual of our baptism we are publicly brought into the church. This is itself a mystery. But do not get stuck on this point. If the ritual is important (and we Christians disagree about what this means and how important it is) then how much more important is it that we welcome the Word of God which gives us real life in the Spirit?

If Christ washes us because he wants us to be “holy and blameless” (5:27) then this further underscores the central quality of his love. He is faithful. He will do what he promises to do and he will pay any price to accomplish what he is determined to accomplish. Such love is faithful to the end, even to death. Husbands are particularly called to show this faithful love to their wives. But wives are to submit on the basis of this same love. They must be faithful as the bride of Christ. This means that each person offers themselves in a permanent and binding way. Each will then do their best to serve the other, to maximize the relational bond that they enjoy by helping the other to grow in health and communion with God and each other.

I am sometimes asked, “What is a perfect couple?” Or, put in a much better way, “What is a truly great marriage?” I answer that there is no perfect couple but there can be a really great marriage. Such a marriage has problems but the couple (together as one) refuses to accept mediocrity. It sees the problems but always searches for a way to work through them and find a better relationship no matter what the problems. Such love is rooted in hope. Without hope love will fail. Two people who refuse mediocrity will give their best and thereby compel one another to love faithfully.

The central problem in our culture is not equality. It is not headship either. The central problem is that we think love is our business and we can do love in our own strength. We do not understand that Christ’s love compels us to lose our life for the other (Mark 8:35). Christ’s love for us is personal but it is also a love for the whole church. It is a love for the other, the person who is not us. If he loves me and he loves the other then I can love the other because of his great love for us both.

His love for the bride frees me to love my bride with this faithful love. It invites me and my wife to take our place in the great transformation of the world through the radiant mystery of Christ’s love. By our love we can truly love and serve others. This is as basic as the gospel itself. Marriage is not primarily about contracts and laws, though this has its place in civil society. Marriage for a Christian is really about living the gospel in the most intimate human relationship of all. It is a God-ordained way to actually die and then truly live, which is at the heart of genuine Christian experience.

Understanding the Mystery of Christian Marriage, Part Four

Paul makes a case in Ephesians 5:21–33 that what is essential in conjugal love is rooted in a “man leaving his father and mother to be united with his wife” (5:31). This takes the reader back to Genesis and the created order. But what makes this unique is not the appeal to origins and the pre-fallen state but rather the application of this principle to the union of God with humanity in Christ, the true Beloved (Mark 2:19).

Here we encounter the central core of what is going on in this text: divine mystery. This means that what Paul is saying here could not be understood before Christ came. If this teaching is not “new” then the point is lost. Marriage is not without a divine and historical foundation, thus it is rooted in Genesis. But it is new here in the sense that no one before Christ could have understood marriage in the fullness of what is being taught by Paul. This is why marriage is understood sacramentally by the Roman Catholic Church. I do not believe marriage meets the essential biblical understanding of a sacrament. At the same time I must tell you that I would rather it be treated as a sacrament, in the very best sense of the word “sacred sign,” than as a convenience or a simple church ceremony, which is the way most evangelicals receive it in the present age. Marriage, for Christians, is living in a divinely ordered relationship according to the love of Christ. Paul says “this is a very great mystery” precisely because he is not primarily referring to marriage between a husband and his wife but rather to “Christ and the church” (5:32). This is what I believe most of us miss when we read this text.

The church fathers had much to say about marriage understood in this way. Listen to Clement of Alexandria: “The spiritual man will prefer neither children, nor marriage, nor parents to his love for God and righteousness in life. To such a man of God, after conception, his wife is a sister and is treated as if of the same father.”

Tertullian writes that marriage is “one hope, one desire, one discipline, and one and the same service. Both are brethren; both are fellow servants. There is no difference of spirit or of the flesh. Rather, they are truly two in one flesh. Where the flesh is one, the spirit is one too.”

And the Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390) says: “‘The two shall be one flesh.’ For the husband and wife are one in nature, in consent, in union, in disposition, and the conduct of life. However, they are separated in sex and number.”

Marriage was designed as a divine covenant. Everyone agrees with this if they read and follow Scripture. There is no Protestant and Catholic disagreement. What I think we can all should accept is that marriage is also a sign of the covenant that God made with humanity. In Christ the man and his wife are to live out this great mystery in a covenant of love, fidelity and fruitfulness.

Marriage is a covenant relationship in which each person loves the other unconditionally. It is not just a contractual relationship in which I promise to love you if you love me. The principal goal of marriage is not the procreation of children, it is also the mutual love of husband and wife. Children are a blessing and the fruit of divine love in Christian marriage. As I have also argued marriage has an important community dimension, namely that couples become living signs of how God loves us and how much God wants to embrace us as family. Christian marriage assures a couple's ability to sustain close intimate relationship thus it rightly assumes a relationship to Christ and his church. Regardless of how the culture defines marriage Christians must obey God, not man.

The wife submits to her husband as “the church submits to Christ” (5:24). Christ does not force the church into submission. He loves her and leads her as a self-giving servant who lays down his life out of love. She lovingly hears his voice and follows because of his sacrifice. This happens because “husbands love their wives [as] Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (5:25). The wife will not find it difficult, in normal circumstances (human sin can always break human relationships), to follow her husband's lead because of his devotion to her, a devotion that is found only in the mystery of Christ’s love for his church (5:25–30).

Understanding the Mystery of Christian Marriage, Part Three

If we are to understand the true mystery of marriage in Christ we must understand that marriage takes on a sacred nature when it is between two Christians. It is a covenant, not a contract. And in Christ it becomes a great mystery that becomes a beautiful and mysterious icon of the love of Christ for his bride.

Married couples are to live in Christ in a way that is enthusiastic about their love for each other as husband and wife. (Enthusiasm has its root meaning in two words en theos, which means to be "in God.") In the day-to-day love that a married couple shares they must learn to love one another as well as their children and the larger community. By so loving they become a living sign (this is where the idea of a sacrament comes from in Catholic theology) of how much Jesus loves us and wishes to embrace us as his brothers and sisters. As the couple works through marital and family crises and struggles they powerfully bear witness to the ministry of the Holy Spirit at work in all our lives.

There are many cultural models of marriage. All have strengths and weaknesses in them because they are all built on human ideas, psychological insights and social developments. Models of marriage that are rooted in cultures like our own look more like a partnership. Economics has a lot to do with how this model actually works. In economically challenged contexts marriage will look very different, say in the Third World. The lower and middle classes will relate to one another very differently than the rich. This is a simple, observable fact. Conservative Christians are prone to take an ideal model of marriage from the West and argue that this is normative for all Christians at all times in all cultures.

In the West we have almost as many options regarding how to live within a marriage as there are couples. Feminism has played a powerful role in our culture and way of life. Feminism has brought great blessings, such as equal political rights, economic benefits and social opportunity for growth and development. Feminism also demonstrates the law of unintended consequences. With it has come confusion and distrust. Marriage has become such a highly complex arrangement that millions are now opting to not marry. The common law marriage has become the norm for many young people. They pursue intimate sexual relationships in different ways all the time saying marriage is not for them, at least not yet. This has created a massive breakdown in the social and emotional well-being of multitudes. The solution to this is not to deny the great gains of feminism but to engage people in “new” ways with the message of Christ’s love. This is what Paul is doing in Ephesians 5, at least as I understand it. To read this text in a way that supports or attacks feminism is to read it incorrectly. This was not even in view in Paul’s social milieu. We must put cultural concepts aside and listen to the amazing truth that is really given in this passage.

The Christian ideal is clear. We are to “make oneself a slave” (Mark 9:35) for the kingdom. One partner is not superior to another. One is not in the position of power over the other. One is not whole unless the other fulfills a role. We are already whole in Christ. We are all free. We are all equal. In a marriage we work this out in the power and grace of the fullness of the Holy Spirit by sharing life with the other person in the love of Christ. In short I believe that no marriage is exactly like another. Each couple must discover its own balance and pattern, by listening and loving, and then each person can take the initiative needed according to giftedness and capacity they discover in one another. In this sense a husband can lead and a wife can follow but this looks nothing like the social structures that we generally create in a particular culture. (This does not mean that we always choose to be counter-cultural, or contrarian.) We may learn to live in many ways that look and feel like the culture we swim in every day precisely because this is where we are most comfortable and find that we can best function in mutuality. The illustrations of my point are so numerous that there is no need to list them.

The husband is the head (5:23) of his wife. The wife does “submit” to her husband (5:22). But being the head is not being the boss, or the executor of the family business. (Note: Both parents share authority over the children. Some totally ludicrous male leaders treat women as if they do not have authority in the home. If their husband dies, or leaves, they do not have the ability to lead their children as a parent! Such elders then tell women they will take on this role. This is patriarchy with a twist that is not biblical.) Headship is linked with Christ in this passage. Think of Christ’s headship over the church. He has saved her, called her, loved her and baptized her. He has given her everything that she needs to be whole. He has all authority in heaven and on earth (a husband does not) yet the Scripture says he uses his supreme authority to love and serve his bride. This is the truth that is truly radical about this text!

Understanding the Mystery of Christian Marriage, Part Two

Yesterday I made the simple point that we must understand Paul’s teaching about husbands and wives, in both Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3, in a way that keeps Christ at the center. He is the head over all. He has redeemed the human race and he is now calling his bride, the church, to a marriage and a wedding feast in the age to come. He cleanses his bride and cherishes her. He loves her with an eternal love. This is the biblical basis for a true understanding of this often controversial text about husbands and wives.

I believe Paul’s view of marriage is totally unexpected if you know the social and cultural background of his words. These words would have shocked ancient people. They should shock us but generally we read them through our own cultural lens. They do not shock us precisely because we have settled for ideology rather than true theology.

Paul clearly says that wives are to submit to their husbands. In fact, they are to do this as to the Lord. But do not fail to see that he plainly says: “Let all kinds of submission to one another become obedience to Christ” (CCB). When we rightly submit to others, in the proper context and manner, we are submitting to Christ. Husbands submit. Wives submit. All faithful Christians are submissive to all kinds of God ordained authority. This does not mean that Christians become doormats for tyrants, whether in marriage or in society. It does mean that if we obey we adopt an attitude like that of Christ. Remember, he refused to use his innate power to overcome opposition. We sometimes read Jesus’ actions as passive. I submit that he actively resists all powers and all tyranny by submitting to the Father in all things. This required hard work, the work of self-discipline and prayer. He did not submit by the power of his divine nature but rather by the power of the Holy Spirit working in his humanity. (Any other view is a heresy if the truth is followed!)

The society of Paul’s time demanded that wives submit to their husbands. The husband was an autocrat who had control over his wife (rights, sexuality, etc.) entirely. Women had few, and at times no, legal place in society. They were expected to please their husbands and to do their will. So when Paul says that wives should submit it could have been understood as a simple endorsement of the cultural norm. But this would be a totally simplistic category mistake given the actual context of this letter. The context is Christ, his supremacy and his authority.

There is no reason to reject Paul’s teaching as oppressive or radically hierarchical. There is no hammer and chisel here. There is no male-centered chain of command. We are “joint-heirs” of the grace of God. We are co-laborers in the gospel. We are brothers and sisters in Christ. “There is no longer any difference between Jew and Greek, or between slave or freed, or between man and woman: but all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). This obviously does not mean that we become sexless, gender-neutral persons. We remain male and female. There is no place for misogyny or gender wars. The point is that in Christ we do not relate to each other as the world teaches us to relate but rather as brothers and sisters, as one undivided humanity. Let this truth soak in for a time. Do not throw up all kinds of reactions. Just let that central thought fill you with his light and truth. It has incredible power when it is acted upon in faith.

The point Paul is making here is too easily missed. He is encouraging Christians to practice a strong mutual love in marriage. He is not reinforcing cultural distinctions but teaching doctrine that is centered in Christ alone. In fact, Paul is not primarily teaching us about marriage in this text. Marriage is secondary and cannot be understood unless we grasp the primary point about Christ. What is primary is the deeply intimate and mystical relationship that Christ has with his church.

Understanding the Mystery of Christian Marriage, Part One

Perhaps no passage in all of Holy Scripture is misused, and abused, more than St. Paul’s instruction in the Epistle to the Ephesians found at the end of chapter five. In 5:21–33 Paul gives the church ethical instruction about marriage. He addresses both husbands and wives. The text has prompted raging debates and divided more than a few Christians. The troubling verse is really 5:22, which says: “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.” The ways in which this text has been understood and applied are almost as various as are the commentators and teachers of the Bible. I do not have a definitive interpretation but I do believe that I understand it in terms of great Christian consensus, at least as regarding the essential points Paul wants us to grasp.

One of my favorite Bible translations is not known among evangelicals, at least from what I have been able to tell. It is called the Christian Community Bible (CCB). This version is an English translation of a version prepared in 1988 by Brazilian translators. A Catholic friend introduced me to it. It includes a solid translation of the Scripture as well as some very helpful annotations. The CCB translates Ephesians 5:21–22 this way:

Let all kinds of submission to one another become obedience to Christ. So wives to their husbands; as to the Lord.

Note that Ephesians 5:21–6:9 clearly parallels Paul’s words in Colossians 3:18–4:1. Both texts follow a Christocentric pattern that sets forth Jesus as Lord over all. Both clearly set forth the truth that Jesus is the Lord of all humanity, the second Adam, the new man. In his resurrection Jesus is declared Lord over all, having defeated death and having been raised for our justification. As the head of all humanity Jesus has suffered everywhere, worked in every field of human activity and given life to all. (There is a definitive universality here but this emphasis is missed by many evangelicals. This seems to be true because evangelicals rightly insist that the ultimate universal salvation of all humanity is not plainly taught in the Scripture!) To put this very simply, Paul is saying in both Ephesians and Colossians that Christ gathers into himself every form of human love and lives the diversity of all human existence; cf. Ephesians 5:1–2.

So the central point here is that Christ is the head of redeemed humanity. In this ethical instruction Paul applies this very principle to marriage and family. This development comes in a way that is totally unexpected. When we read this text as a simple endorsement of “male headship” we thus read it ideologically, not biblically. We should be surprised by such a text and if it does not lead us in a direction that stands against Western or Eastern culture we should doubt our conclusions. This text is unique precisely because the basis for the instruction is so uniquely rooted in Christ our head.

Question: When biblical texts no longer intrigue and surprise us what happened?

Marriage & Family: The Words We Use Still Matter

Everyone who is not comatose knows that a huge debate is unfolding in this country about the legal basis, and definition, of marriage. Is marriage between one man and one woman, or simply a relationship between two consenting adults (e.g., same-sex marriage), or perhaps more than two adults (polygamy is making a legal comeback, no joke)? The Washington State Supreme Court, in November 2005, ruled in favor of de facto parenthood. This concept is a growing popular option, for courts in about out ten states, to decide the visitation rights and legal relationships between children and adults who are not biologically related and not legally married. The particular case in Washington involved two lesbians who ended a relationship and then debated their respective rights to the child that one of the women had conceived through artificial insemination more than six years ago. Her partner assisted in the process and thus now claims parental rights to the child they were rearing together.

Judges can now award legal status to an adult who filled the “function” of a parent for “a sufficient length of time.” The rise of de facto parenthood is seen as a great victory for gays and lesbians, who can’t establish legal parenthood via marriage, at least not yet. For reasons that I do not yet fully understand gay couples could seek second-parent adoptions legally but generally do not prefer to pursue this option.

The implications of this legal trend are huge. In a Massachusetts court a dispute between a father, who served away from home in the military, and an aunt who cared for his eleven-year old child while he was away, was settled on an appeal to the same type of de facto marriage idea.

Sara Butler Nardo, writing in the Weekly Standard, observes that “In principle there is no numerical limit to the number of de facto parents a child can have. Custody battles between two parents can get ugly enough—imagine custody battles among three or four” (“De Facto Parenthood,” March 13, 21).  She adds, “While the courts have attempted to create objective criteria for de facto parenthood, the category remains far fuzzier than parenthood as traditionally defined” (page 21). Rather than asking if the adult has a biological or adoptive relationship to the child the relationship can now be defined by “parent-like” relationships, a broad definition if the law ever found one.

Nardo concludes, and I believe she is profoundly correct:

In reality, de facto parenthood serves adults more than children, as it continues adults’ liberation from marriage, strengthening  their ability to found or join a family however they wish, without marrying first, or ever.

This new circular definition of parenthood —a parent is a person who performs the function of a parent—is part of a larger trend in family law that sees the laws as the creator of the family, rather than one of its many custodians (page 22)

Not only is there a wide-open battle, culturally and legally, for the meaning of the word “marriage” there is also a huge battle now for the meaning of the term “parent.” Is there anyone, at least with a moral compass left, who seriously doubts that the sexual revolution has sown the whirlwind and now we are reaping the bitter fruit of the post-Kinsey era with a hellish vengeance? The real tragedy is to be seen in the children of this experimentation. I believe these children have become the new mission field, especially for our city churches. Some understand this well, most are asleep and complaining about the political battles without real concern for the missional implications. Only a missional perspective will “see” these new fields as white for harvest and know how to prepare workers to bring in a spiritual harvest that could impact a decaying culture rather powerfully. When all is said and done the gospel is still the “power of God” that can transform people, marriages, homes and communities.

The Changing Face of the Abortion Debate in America

The cover of the week’s Time magazine has a picture of a human hand with four replica fetuses at various stages of early development resting in the hand. It is a powerful image and worth more than a thousand words. The story is titled: “The Abortion Campaign You Never Hear About.” It reveals how crisis pregnancy centers are working to win one woman at a time to not undergo an abortion and thus to give birth to her baby. The writer, Nancy Gibbs, asks: “But are they playing fair?”

What follows is a story about the growth and operation of countless pregnancy centers (one group says there are 2,300 but the number is seemingly low) around the United States. These centers are typically Christian and often operate under the umbrella of one of three national groups: Care Net, Heartbeat International and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates. What surprises me is that it took the mainstream media this long to even pay attention to this movement. The reason they are paying attention now is that the rate of abortion is in decline and has been from some years. Since 1983 it has, in fact, been in decline. The abortion rate now stands at 23.8% of all pregnancies, the lowest it has been since shortly after the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973. In 1990 there were 1.61 million abortions in the U. S. By 2003 it was down to 1.28 million and the number still appears to be in decline. This decline makes pro-abortionists nervous.

The Time article seeks to show how groups like Planned Parenthood are concerned about “scare tactics” in crisis pregnancy centers. They also criticize these centers for not giving a full-range of real medical information. One thing is obvious—both sides of this debate distrust the other. Pro-life activists say abortionists are in business for the money and don’t really care about women, while pro-choice advocates counter that crisis pregnancy centers are in it because of their ideology and also don’t care about women. My honest opinion, and I am fervently and reverently pro-life, is that these suspicions have now become a part of the problem we face in the larger society. I don’t see an easy solution to them but I think it is imperative that Christians take the first step toward the advocates of abortion and work even harder at treating them as real humans, who are loved by God. These are people, people with fears and concerns just like Christians. It seems to me that so long as we call these people “baby-killers” and “murderers” we have no chance to touch their lives directly.

This abortion industry is dirty business, no doubt about it. Big money is involved. Some in the industry hate pro-life Christians with a white-hot hatred. I hate the industry and I loathe the gruesome practice of abortion. I am not arguing for letting up on our efforts to end abortions. And I do wish for hundreds more clinics to spare many more lives of unborn children. But there is more to this issue than baby-killers versus rescuers.

Pro-choice advocates have begun to fight back more aggressively according to the Time story. NARAL volunteers say they have called numerous crisis pregnancy clinics and asked questions to discover that a good deal of misinformation is given out. One clinic, if the NARAL spokesperson is to be believed, said she was told “9 out of 10 couples that go through an abortion split up.” Use of such data can be misleading. Christians do not need to dodge the basic facts to make a very strong case for birth, and against abortion, without ever distorting facts.

These undercover callers may really be about discrediting the crisis pregnancy centers, as some Christians argue in the Time article. (I believe there is likely to be truth in this concern.) Most crisis pregnancy centers are seeking to calmly help fearful pregnant women make a good choice that they will not later regret. They are trying to help people face the consequences of their actions responsibly and ethically. The Time writer gets it about right when she concludes, “One person’s loving support is another’s emotional pressure.” So the debate goes on.

There are clearly two kinds of Christian activists in the pro-life movement. There are “holy war” fighters and “loving support” care givers. I believer the latter number now far outnumbers the former and the more this becomes the reality of this struggle the better for both the pro-life movement and the church. A story is told in the Time article about a conservative Presbyterian Church in Asheville, North Carolina, which makes this point very well. A nurse, who was an abortion provider and once a member of this congregation, feared pro-life people and was intimidated by them. The pastor eventually began a meeting in a local café where the sides could talk. The pro-choice nurse says that when they met the first time the first words the conservative Christians offered were to ask her for forgiveness for not having dealt with some of the personal problems between them earlier. The nurse left the church but five years later the group still meets, showing people how to disagree civilly, and lovingly, and how to seek common ground where and when they so strongly disagree. This group eventually came up with a “common-ground statement.” This model is both amazing and encouraging.

The pastor of Asheville's Trinity Presbyterian Church, Jeff Hutchinson, gets the Christian perspective right when he concludes:

I would never have said that the ends justify the means but I know that was in my heart—if lying helps save a baby’s life, [then] that glorifies God. This whole process (i.e., the discussion with the other side of the debate) has reminded me that Jesus is not a Machiavellian. It really helps me trust the sovereignty of God. He’s in control of who lives and dies. My effort is to serve folks, and the means I use matter. I have to glorify Jesus. The results are in God’s hands.

I pray that the day will come when abortion, except for the life of the mother, will end. I also know that in real life it will never end entirely because illegal abortions have always been available and the problem has been with us since the fall. In the end I believe we must make this issue far less political and far more a matter of speaking the truth in love and caring for real people with real struggles. We must, in short, restore civility to the debate and Christians should take the lead in this.

One by one we can save lives. But this is only the first step. When we have saved a life we also need to learn how to care for the life of the mother and her new child. We have come a long way from 1973. Clear progress has been made. But we have much further to go. Truth and love must not be compromised if we are to truly win the battle for people’s minds and hearts, and thus the struggle to save the lives of unborn infants.

Marriage & Abortion: There is a Link

For some time I have believed that there had to be a clear link between marriage and abortion. Yesterday I heard a commentary on Relevant Radio (Catholic) that showed there was an obvious connection. Unmarried couples are four times more likely to have an abortion than married couples. And single mothers are also four times more likely to have an abortion than married mothers. Further, children growing up in homes without married parents are far more likely to have an abortion as well.

We recently heard that the number of unmarried adults in America now exceeds the number of married adults, with almost 51% of adults not married. This stastic is a bit misleading in several ways, including how the data was gathered. Yet I would have to guess that things do not bode well for either marriage or the pro-life movement over the long term unless we see a new generation arise that is deeply committed to a culture of life. Except for a religious awakening of major proportions this seems quite unlikely.

One things is certain. The church should defend the helpless and encourage marriage without adopting a posture that is always us versus them. The gospel is our message, and it is good news for all. By this powerful message we can form a culture of life. This does not mean that pro-family and pro-life causes are not extremely valuable but they are still a secondary means for the real changes that we need as a society. We are in a moral freefall and few seem to ponder the consequences, especially in most of our churches. My concern is not that the world is failing but that the world is in the church and the church is failing.

Love and Marriage

Today Anita and I celebrate our 36th wedding anniversary. I love my wife more now than I did when I met her, in fact even more than I did at our 35th anniversary. Love, to me, is first friendship. Friendship, like love, is destroyed by long absence, though it may be increased by short intermission. Anita and I have understood this for many years and realized that we need to be together a lot but we also need intermissions, the very brief intervals that feed true love and deep abiding friendship. We get along wonderfully, enjoy each other immensely and share many common interests. But we also are very different personalities. In our case it could be said that opposites did attract. But the glue that has kept us together so well for all these is the glue of divine love, the love that God gives to those who seek His kingdom above their own happiness.

The philosopher Leibnitz once said, "To love is to find pleasure in the happiness of the person loved." I think we could both say that this has been a major reason for our thirty-six happy years together. We have genuinely found pleasure in seeing the other person truly happy. We work together in many ways and on many projects. This invites little disagreements. We settle them almost immediately. We have learned that disagreements are normal but resolving them is the key to long term success. Robert Louis Stevenson was right when he said, "Marriage is one long conversation, chequered by disputes." But the disputes have been very, very few in our case and always settled by true love.

We remain the best of friends to this day and we hold back no secrets. Joy fills our lives. An anonymous contributor has rightly said, "Grief can take care of itself, but to get the full value of joy you must have somebody to divide it with." I have the sweetest, most wonderful person I've ever known to divide my joy with every single day. There is no one I would rather talk to, no one I would rather share my sorrows and my joys with, no one who brings a smile to my face more often, and no one who encourages me to still pursue my dreams like Anita. Today I give thanks for Anita, God's greatest human gift to my life. The wise words of Matthew Henry sum up my feelings this day very well:

"Woman was taken out of man---Not out of his head, to rule over him; nor out of his feet, to be trampled under by him; but out of his side, to be equal to him---under his arm, that he might protect her, and near his heart that he might love her."