Today's Christian MarriageTweet
Posted 11/16/12 at 3:32 PM | Joe Beam |
It may be physical, emotional, mental, or spiritual. Whatever the type of abuse, it eventually destroys the abused and, ultimately, the abuser.
The problem came to national attention again. ESPN reported, “U.S. women's soccer goalkeeper Hope Solo and former NFL tight end Jerramy Stevens were married Tuesday, according to reports, after an altercation that left Stevens in jail and their wedding plans up in the air…Stevens [had been] arrested early Monday for fourth-degree domestic violence assault [against Solo].” When police found Solo wounded and blood on Stevens’ shirt, they arrested him. The next day a judge released Stevens for lack of evidence connecting him with the assault. Apparently, Solo did not press charges. Later the same day, she married Stevens.
Only their athletic reputations made this event newsworthy. It certainly is not unique. Many marry a person who abuses them physically, emotionally, mentally, or spiritually.
Why would a person marry someone who treats them badly?
Why would anyone stay married to a person who continues to hurt her or him?
Why Are They In The Relationship?
Providing all the potential answers to this question would take a book. Maybe volumes. However, among the more common reasons are: FULL POST
Posted 11/12/12 at 9:10 PM | Joe Beam |
“I’ve never loved anyone the way I love her. I never knew I could feel like this. So deep. Fulfilling. Amazing. I can tell her anything; my dreams, my fears, my strengths, my flaws.” John spoke slowly but fervently as he explained his relationship with Sheila . It was not his idea to visit with me; he had come because another friend asked him to do so.
“I trust her with my secrets. She understands me more than anyone. And I know everything about her. She’s told me everything.” He looked away, apparently visualizing Sheila. “She’s even more beautiful on the inside than she is on the outside. I’d die for her and she would do the same for me. I don’t know why God didn’t send her into my life until now, but He did. We were meant to be together.”
A few days before our conversation, John’s pastor had confronted him about Sheila. John admitted his feelings for her and his intention to divorce his wife and marry her. The pastor lectured John that what he felt was not love, but an unhealthy lust that would destroy him and his family.
“So, do you believe I love Sheila, or do you, too, think that I’m deluded?” he asked. FULL POST
Posted 10/23/12 at 4:03 PM | Joe Beam
Is it okay for a married but separated person to date other people? The question definitely is not new. The situation that brought it to the forefront is not unique.
Lillian Kwon’s Christian Post article begins “Dinesh D'Souza, president of The King's College and co-producer of ‘2016: Obama's America,’ is facing scrutiny for his relationship with a woman whom he has introduced to some as his fiancée. D'Souza is currently married but has filed for divorce.”
My knowledge of Dinesh D’Souza lies only in what I read. Therefore, the comments that follow address principles, not him directly. However, things reported about Dinesh’s circumstances apply to the discussion below. Therefore, I refer to them only to address principles about separation, dating, and morality.
When Dinesh became president of The King’s College in 2010, he moved to New York but left his wife in California. Statements from The King’s College board chair Andy Mills indicate Dinesh’s marriage was in trouble in 2010.
After twenty years of marriage, Dinesh filed for divorce October 4 of this year. However, according to World Magazine, on September 28, the week before he filed, he traveled with Denise Joseph to an event where he introduced her to some people as his fiancée. After speaking at the Christian event that evening and receiving a standing ovation, he spent the night in the same Comfort Inn room with Denise. When confronted later, he claimed nothing happened. Warren Cole Smith wrote, “D’Souza on Oct. 4 told me his marriage was ‘over,’ said he ‘is sure Denise is the one for me,’ and said he had ‘done nothing wrong.’” FULL POST
Posted 10/20/12 at 6:39 PM | Edward Ridenour
A very valuable and sober portion of Scripture in the New Testament is the account of a Samaritan woman meeting Jesus at a well of water in the Gospel of John chapter four.
God’s word rehearses the encounter that this woman experienced with the omniscient Christ, who exposed/revealed her lifestyle of marital or sexually intimate sin and disregard, along with His message of hope for effectively changing her life for the better and receiving the power to keep it that way. I think most everyone would agree with this conclusion.
However, where the disagreement occurs is in the understanding of what is meant in Christ’s comments to her in His description of her marital or sexually intimate lifestyle, both past and present, as well as the degree of sinfulness attributed.
There are mainly two opposing theologies of marriage represented in understanding and explaining the meaning of this Scripture. Each theology, of course, arriving at their conclusion based upon the wordage of Christ’s description of the woman’s life. Howbeit, they both can’t be right.
Posted 8/19/12 at 5:42 PM | Edward Ridenour |
Marriage is unique, because it is confined to human beings alone. It was intended by God to be unique and unmatched. As God designed it, there is nothing earthly that compares to it, and there is nothing in heaven or earth that can change or dismiss it from existing.
Biblical marriage is sacred and is a witness to the sacredness of God, because like God it is absolute, exclusive, pure, and unchangeable, demanding respect and adherence. It is a sacred law established by God, whereby He is the designer, ruler, and judge over, possessing consequences (Hebrews 13:4). Any law established by man can never supersede nor alter it.
This marital law of God is one of the simplest of His laws established at the very beginning of creation, which Jesus clearly defined to all when He declared “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife: And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mark 10:6-9, KJV).
Posted 6/29/12 at 1:09 AM | Edward Ridenour
Without controversy or exaggeration, it is fair to declare that there have been plenty of oral arguments made and articles written within Christendom regarding divorce. The commenter’s who claim knowledge and understanding of divorce range from every spectrum of position within the Christian faith.
The primary theme predominantly conveyed by these claimants is the well known statement, which is considered to be the sum of God’s attitude toward divorce – that being “God hates divorce.”
It is taken from Malachi 2:16 where the prophet speaking in place of God says “he hateth putting away” (KJV). It means one spouse casting away the other spouse from having a joint fellowship together, removing all obligations, physical connections, and provisions the expelled spouse may require or expect.
If so much of what they declare were not so disturbing and detrimental to all Christendom their declarations and counsel would be entertaining.
Posted 3/11/12 at 11:10 AM | Edward Ridenour
In my previous article "BIBLICAL MARRIAGE? Dear Lord I Messed Up!" I proclaimed a confidence that my theological perceptions/applications toward Biblical marriage "possess a significantly more thorough, contextual, and cohesive rendering...than does any other."
I also stated "If one makes an honest effort to incorporate the marital theology of others into Scripture, it doesn't take long to determine that its application either fosters a confusing outcome or is contradicted by Scripture itself...This is why many trained scholars and revisionists explain and rewrite Scripture as they do, because based on their theology it makes no sense to them, as it is written. So, they change it to fit their theology. They have to...And yet, in spite of their inapplicable re-creations and embellishments, confusion and contradiction remain."
In my article "BIBLICAL MARRIAGE: An Honorable Acquisition, and Knowing It," I explained thoroughly how revisionists changed the wording in Hebrews 13:4 rendering the true meaning in this verse "erroneous and incorrect." Another incorrect rendering of Scripture by them was emphasized in my article "Better To Marry Than To Burn."
Now I want to expound on some verses by the Apostle Paul that: 1) Once again, speaks to my theology of Biblical marriage. 2) Is not understood by most, if not all, because of a secular marital mindset, which makes them appear to be contradictive as it is written in the KJV. 3) Again, are incorrectly rewritten in revisions, with a falsely fabricated and indefensible implication, which still doesn't resolve the presumed discrepancy. FULL POST
Posted 2/3/12 at 2:39 PM | Edward Ridenour
To date, I have attempted to teach all aspects of the truth of Biblical marriage, i.e., its making, what violates it, the consequences of those violations, and more, particularly to those who declare to be born again members of the body of Christ.
For those of you who have read my book or my articles on this blog, you should have clearly concluded that the theology I teach concerning marriage and fornication is considerably contrary to the theology that is being taught and promoted.
My hope has been that most who have patiently read my articles (meaning, the subject is too deep to write all aspects of marriage in one article, hence the purpose of my book) have viewed each article as:
1) A building block, defining and supporting the reasons for me teaching as I do on Biblical marriage and why it contradicts other teachings on the topic.
2) An insight through God's Word on just how horrible conditions are sexually within Christendom.
3) A Biblically secure, dependable, and defendable exposition of instruction for the church's future purity, example, and promotion of marriage.
The primary evidence that creates the contradiction between marital theologies is plainly the Biblical view of individual sexual intimacy (connections) - its effects and consequences. FULL POST
Posted 12/24/11 at 10:01 AM | Edward Ridenour
(4) "That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; (5) Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God: (6) That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified. (7) For God hath not called us to uncleanness, but unto holiness. (8) He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his Holy Spirit" (1 Thessalonians 4:4-8, KJV).
This article is a follow up to my previous one, "BIBLICAL MARRIAGE: It's A Clean Thing." As I Focus now on 1 Thessalonians 4:4-8, it can be observed that the Apostle Paul continues his theme from 4:3 regarding "sanctification" (cleanliness), which he incites each member of the Thessalonica church to adamantly secure and protect, through the abstinence from fornication.
In 4:3, Paul placed emphasis on abstaining from every possible kind of disordered sexual intimacy (fornication) in the flesh, because any act of fornication is contrary to that which makes a Biblical marriage and defiles a Christian's new birth sanctification, against God's will. FULL POST
Posted 11/18/11 at 8:20 PM | Edward Ridenour
Because we were created as sexual human beings with an innate desire and ability to make sexually intimate connections with another, we must not initiate any connection that is outside of what God has designed sexually for us, as a male or female, which is His will.
If a connection is made within His design, it is a marital connection and is clean before Him. If it is made outside of His design, it is a fornicated connection and is unclean before Him. Therefore, as I have very clearly described in my previous CP articles and book, one's sexual intimacies will determine whether one is legitimately married (in the will of God) or committing fornication (violating the will of God).
Why do I infer sexual intimacy when mentioning fornication? I infer this because, whenever fornication is mentioned in the Bible there will be two contexts to which it will reference: It will either be in a strictly spiritual context, as a consequence of the worshipping of false gods (idolatry), incurring a fornication of one's spirit; otherwise, it will be in the physical context of an inordinate sexually intimate engagement forbidden by God, which is fornication of one's flesh and spirit. My emphasis is on the physical aspect of fornication. FULL POST