*Called to Follow

If there is one great principle of Christian living, it is walking in Christ's footsteps (I John 2:6). Sounds easy, but putting it into practice is one of the most difficult tasks of a Christian's life. If we succeed, however, we will be one of those to whom He says in the resurrection, "Well done, good and faithful servant." We will have not only lived as He did, we will have put on His character image, the great goal of the Christian life (Romans 8:29).

In Matthew 4:18-22, Jesus begins to call His disciples, particularly the pairs of brothers, Peter and Andrew and James and John:

And Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. Then He said to them, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men." They immediately left their nets and followed Him. Going on from there, He saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets. He called them, and immediately, they left the boat and their father, and followed Him.

The sparse prose of the gospel account makes it seem as if the four of them just dropped their nets, jumped off the boats, and never looked back!

Evidently, this was Jesus' first command to each of His disciples. Maybe He did not say these exact words to each one, but it seems that Matthew gives this account as an example of Jesus' pattern in calling them: He commanded them, "Follow Me." And they immediately left what they were doing and followed Him.

On the surface, "Follow Me" may appear to mean simply, "Go where I go," but there is far more to it. The disciples would learn over the next three and a half years that "Follow Me" meant a great deal more than just "Walk behind Me." It also means "Do what I do," "Live as I do," and "Experience what I experience." Ultimately, it also means "Suffer and die like Me." Yet, on the other hand, it also means "Share eternal life and My rewards, too." That simple command runs the entire gamut of Christian life and potential.

From a negative perspective, Luke 9:57-62 considers the costs of being a follower of Christ:

Now it happened as they journeyed on the road, that someone said to Him, "Lord, I will follow You wherever You go." And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head." Then He said to another, "Follow Me." But he said, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father." Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God." And another also said, "Lord, I will follow You, but let me first go and bid them farewell who are at my house." But Jesus said to him, "No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."

Clearly, following Jesus is neither easy nor risk-free. Its sacrifices and hardships are sometimes severe. It involves a commitment that most people are just not willing to make because true discipleship involves absolute devotion and dedication to Christ Himself. Thus, Jesus said these things, testing these men, finding out what was really in their hearts—if they were willing to commit themselves to Him, to His way of life, and to His purposes.

In the final verse, He lets us know the bottom line of what is required: One who is fit for God's Kingdom is willing to give all. German clergyman Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who lived under the Nazi regime, wrote a book called The Cost of Discipleship. In it, he sums up the Christian calling with a now well-known quotation, "When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die."

In this passage, Luke records three instances in which someone gives an excuse to refuse Christ's calling to follow Him, illustrating three general areas in which people fail. The first reason is that the Christian life is one of discomfort. Jesus tells the man that He did not have a place to lay His head. In God's Word, Christians are often called "strangers" and "sojourners." We are travelers going through a land or residing only temporarily. In a spiritual sense, we are not citizens of the lands in which we live (Philippians 3:20). So, as travelers along the road of life toward the Kingdom of God, we cannot expect to have all the comforts of home.

We cannot allow the accoutrements of this world and of this life to hold us back in our devotion to Christ. Our homes, jobs, vacations, clothes, pastimes—none of these things compare to the importance of this Christian life. We must be willing to forsake all of these things if they inhibit our relationship with God. It may make life uncomfortable, but the rewards are wonderful.

The second reason some fail is because the Christian life is sacrificial. The man asks Jesus if he could first bury his father, but He answers, "No. You go and preach the Kingdom of God." We, because of our calling, must often forsake the customary duties, privileges, associations, and activities of normal life. The Christian's focus, Jesus says, is on the living, those whom God has called and given the truth, whose focus is also on God's work (see John 6:29).

When God calls a person, His will comes first. We may end up "missing out" on many of this world's activities. Some people miss them so much that they feel short-changed by God. Whether we pass or fail on this point depends on our priorities. If our ties to the world and its ways are too strong, we will be unwilling to sacrifice them to follow Christ. To be a true disciple, He says, we have to cut many or most of those ties.

The third reason people refuse Christ's call follows from the second: The Christian life demands new loyalties. The third man wanted to say farewell to his close friends and family. Jesus' reply is that once we commit to God's way, we cannot turn back, or we will be considered unfit. Many Christians are the only ones called from their particular families. They often find that, over time, they must forsake their own blood to a degree because they discover that they have little in common with them. Their ways of life are so dramatically divergent that separation becomes natural. In the church under a new and better way of life, they find a new identity, a new family, and a new purpose.

It is said that blood is thicker than water, but Jesus warns that our devotion to Him and God's way of life must be stronger. It requires an act of will to make our devotion to Him stronger than our blood ties. The Holy Spirit will not just infuse us to be totally committed to God. We have to set our wills to believe and follow through with making God our first priority in life, to go where He says to go. This is the new loyalty that Christ's calling demands.

In this way, we begin to live the life of Christ.

RBV: Proverbs 12:7

The wicked are overthrown and are no more, 

but the house of the righteous will stand. 

—Proverbs 12:7

This proverb stands at the end of a short section, beginning in verse 5, illustrating the progression of the sinful person in contrast to those who fear God. The opening verse describes both of these types of people making plans: The upright have good goals and mark out an ethical route to reach them, whereas the wicked devise devious ways to get what they want. The middle proverb, verse 6, describes the thinking and speech of each type: Evil people use and abuse others—often the good people, who seem to be easy pickings—to get their way, while the righteous trust in their integrity, which they have learned from following God's ways, to get them out of troubles.

Solomon concludes his short character sketch with a confident announcement of the fates of these two types of people. In fact, the sense of the verse is that these ends are sure and inescapable. While we realize that God could intervene and turn the evil person to him, and that the good person could be derailed and fall from his godly integrity, Solomon is speaking in terms of the general human condition. The percentages are high that matters will run their course along the lines he draws in this proverb.

He sees the end of the sinful person as "overthrown and no more," a rendering that most of the major translations follow exactly or nearly so. The illustration behind their being overthrown is of a "turning of the hand," that is, an indefinite catastrophe will take them away in a moment. They will be here today and gone tomorrow, swept away in a vicious flash-flood of ruin, whether physical, financial, or otherwise. In other words, the wicked are setting themselves up for spectacular failure.

That they are "no more" implies that they will vanish from the scene. They may seem so formidable and permanent, but the catastrophe reveals just how powerless they really are, and they disappear as if they were never there. Underlying this assertion is a sense of the long-term, that the family line wicked person will not last, that no dynasty will be built. Their evil will consume them in short while, as sinfulness is really a kind of slow-suicide.

The more positive side of the proverb is that those who stand fast in God's way will have long life and perpetuity in their family. Again, this is not always the case—certainly, some righteous people never marry, and other righteous people, though married, never have children. However, the general truth is that right living produces conditions that encourage health, long life, and good habits and traits that are passed down from one generation to another.

The thought in this verse is expressed in several places in Scripture, perhaps best in the second commandment:

For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. (Exodus 20:5-6)

The effects of a person's sins reach down the next few generations and cause untold harm, yet the righteousness of a godly person can produce blessings in the lives of his descendants hundreds or thousands of years in the future (consider the example of Abraham and his faithfulness). If we want good things for ourselves and our children, the clear choice is to "fear God and keep His commandments" (Ecclesiastes 12:13).

Endangering Our Children

From the September-October 2012 issue of Forerunner.

As the American mainstream continues to become more politically liberal, as recent election results indicate, long-held conservative beliefs seem to be facing increased marginalization. For instance, as minorities in the United States inch toward majority status, the conservative position on immigration—no amnesty, tightened border security, tougher punishment for illegal entry, limited welfare to illegals, etc.—is labeled "extreme right-wing," "unbalanced," and "unworkable." In the same way, fiscally conservative economic ideas are considered to be "harsh" and "partisan."

A particular area in which liberals feel especially empowered lately is homosexual rights, particularly on the subject of "gay marriage," a misnomer if there ever was one. Nine states and the District of Columbia have legalized gay marriage, while Rhode Island recognizes such "marriages" performed in other states and California recognizes them on a conditional basis. While this is hardly a majority (39 states prohibit it either constitutionally or by statute), gays are crowing and even telling conservatives to shut up and go away on the issue. As one activist put it, echoing the President's words after his 2008 election victory, "We've won."

However, objective research and empirical evidence still tilt heavily in the traditional, conservative direction. Yet, even in the face of the facts, gay and lesbian activists and their cohorts in the media feel the winds of public opinion to be so strongly on their side that they will attempt to intimidate and destroy any scientist or researcher who dares to show that the "gay" lifestyle is detrimental in any way. Lately, they have done this despite research showing that children raised in "gay households" suffer from that environment.

For instance, in July 2010, Dr. Walter Schumm, a Family Studies professor at Kansas State University, released his comprehensive study in the Journal of Biosocial Science on the effects of "gay parenting." He found that children raised by gay parents are up to twelve times more like to identify themselves as gay—58% of children of lesbians and 33% of children raised by gay men call themselves gay. Yet, only three percent of the general population is gay.

Dr. Schumm quickly felt the wrath of the homosexual lobby. He was labeled a fake and a fraud—and perhaps most biting of all politically, a "conservative plant." Though his work cannot be assailed, the personal derision sent a message to researchers that telling the truth about the many downsides of homosexuality is likely to get them publicly lampooned and pilloried.

Fortunately, fear of public ridicule has not stopped some. This past June, Social Science Research published the study of a team led by Dr. Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas-Austin. The website on their work summarizes the findings: ". . . the data suggest rather clearly that children who were raised by a parent who had a same-sex relationship were on average at a significant disadvantage when compared to children who were raised by their married, biological mother and father."

On this research, Karla Dial at CitizenLink.com writes:

According to his findings, children raised by homosexual parents are more likely than those raised by married heterosexual parents to suffer from poor impulse control, depression and suicidal thoughts, require mental health therapy; identify themselves as homosexual; choose cohabitation; be unfaithful to partners; contract sexually transmitted diseases; be sexually molested; have lower income levels; drink to get drunk; and smoke tobacco and marijuana. ("University Vindicates Mark Regnerus")

Homosexual activists and academics cried foul, calling Regnerus "homophobic" and demanding the university fire him. They lied in the media, saying that his findings were false, but could provide no proof against them. After a rigorous investigation, the university found that Regnerus' research had been conducted properly and without any kind of scientific misconduct.

Centuries—millennia actually—of experience and wisdom show that the best environment to raise children is in the home of their biological parents, each having a father and a mother. It is the family unit that God endorses. Anyone who cares about humanity, and particularly, humanity's children, should want the best for them, but not the militant homosexual lobby and their supporters. In their lust for control over what society accepts as good and moral, they are willing to condemn children to substandard lives or worse. This tells the observant that they will let nothing get in their way.

In this little slice of modern society, we see Paul's prediction of the perilous times of the last days coming to pass (II Timothy 3:1-5). If they are willing to jettison the next generation of children to enhance their political power, what else are they willing to do?

Marriage—A God-Plane Relationship (Part Five)

As Part Four illustrated, a chief purpose of marriage and family is to teach proper, godly government. It provides a conducive environment to learn both how to submit to authority and how to oversee others in love. Even in the "marriage chapter," Ephesians 5, Paul makes frequent use of governmental terms (italicized below) to describe the ideal marriage relationship:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. (Ephesians 5:22-29)

Submit is a governmental term, as the governed person surrenders, gives in, or yields to the one who is in authority, and the apostle later uses subject in the same way. Paul employs the word head to denote one who has authority over an institution, just as the head directs the body. In God's scheme, the husband has authority over his wife and family in a similar way to Christ's authority over His Bride, the church. Again, we see the physical/spiritual parallel.

Perhaps the most significant governmental term in the whole passage is love. To many, love and government seem like odd companions, for most governments do not practice love but sheer, unfeeling power. But God's government is different. Love—outgoing concern for everyone and everything—is the very basis of His government and way of life. Paul illustrates this by pointing out that Jesus Christ governs His church in love, giving us examples of how His love is manifested to us: by sacrificing, sanctifying, cleansing, glorifying, nourishing, and cherishing it. The apostle turns these into instructions to the person in authority—the head, the husband—on how he must work to produce a happy, successful marriage.

Throughout this passage, he emphasizes the fact that the marriage union has a greater purpose, and a major one is to teach and practice proper governance. He stresses the authority and the loving care of Christ, the Head, as well as the submission and eventual glory of the church. In the husband's role, authority is finely balanced by loving care, and in the wife's role, her present submission is compensated by her ultimate glorification.

Many people think of government negatively, but good government offsets its use of power with an appropriate amount of love, combined with humility, and the promise of reward or blessing. These elements do not always take place at the same time, but this mix of virtues will eventually produce some form of glory, that is, a wonderful, magnificent result. In the case of marriage, it should produce enduring, harmonious, loving mates; happy, productive children; and sterling, righteous character in all parties involved.

These days, authority is disrespected and maligned, and Paul—actually, the whole Bible—teaches that this should not be. God is the ultimate authority, and He gives it to governments, institutions, and men as He sees fit (Romans 13:1-7; see Daniel 4:17). Those so endued are responsible for wielding their power justly and fairly, balancing it with kindness and concern. In the church, especially, we should have a better and more proper understanding of how government should work. Sometimes authority is not always used properly even in the church—yet in some of these cases, we make such a judgment because our perspective is skewed by various factors. A patient person will often find that it produces good fruit in the end.

Paul continues his teaching in Ephesians 5:30-32:

For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Just as Jesus reached back to God's instruction to Adam and Eve in His teaching about marriage in Matthew 19, the apostle similarly refers to Genesis 2:24, when Eve is first presented to Adam. This verse, often called the "leave and cleave" verse, reveals that there should be a definite break between one's life as a child and life as an adult spouse. To put it another way, a man's life under his father and mother should be completely separate from his new life in which he is over his own household.

According to this verse, the newly married couple should set up a house on their own because to do otherwise confuses the roles and responsibilities that God desires to work on through this relationship. If a man remains under his father and mother, he cannot be the lord of his own manor, as it were; he cannot really be a head to his wife. In the same way, if the couple lives in her parent's home, the wife has divided loyalties. Who is really her head: her husband or her father?

For the marriage to work best, the couple should not remain in the home of either set of parents because it does not allow for the intended relationship between husband and wife. It is one thing if some sort of hardship forces the couple to live with the parents for a short time, but to fulfill God's command and purpose in Genesis 2:24, a newly married couple should set up their own household as soon as practicable.

A man should be king of his own castle and his wife, his queen without interference from parents or in-laws. The parents can be there to give needed advice, to lend a hand, and to watch the children from time to time, but for the couple to grow and develop the character that they need both now and for God's Kingdom, they should be on their own.

This means that, barring other complications, a couple should not marry if they are unable or not mature enough to set up a separate household. They should put off marriage until the husband can support his wife financially and emotionally. Paul does say in I Corinthians 7:9, that if a man and woman cannot control themselves, "it is better to marry than to burn with passion." However, that piece of advice has frequently been abused by people who are unwilling to practice self-control—a sign that one or both of them is indeed immature.

Next time, we will delve further into God's instruction in Genesis 2:24.

Marriage—A God-Plane Relationship (Part Four)

Psalm 128 illustrates how properly honoring and working with God within marriage and the family produces the finest product for His Kingdom:

Blessed is every one who fears the LORD, who walks in His ways. When you eat the labor of your hands, you shall be happy, and it shall be well with you. Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine in the very heart of your house, your children like olive plants all around your table. Behold, thus shall the man be blessed who fears the LORD. The LORD bless you out of Zion, and may you see the good of Jerusalem all the days of your life. Yes, may you see your children's children. Peace be upon Israel! (Psalm 128:1-6)

Notice how positive this psalm is! The whole process begins with a proper fear of the Lord, and from that foundation, blessing radiates out to the whole family. When the fear of the Lord forms the basis for a marriage, the couple is starting out their marriage properly, and they can expect good results—positive fruit—in time.

Because a man and his wife begin on the proper footing—and it is assumed that they continue in it—they will find happiness, satisfaction, unity, and of course, blessedness. There is even the good possibility of a long, fulfilling life. God presents a family that is content and fruitful, full of potential for growth and expansion.

Moreover, the last sentence in Psalm 128 suggests that such families bring peace to the whole nation! James 3:18 reads: "Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace." An environment of peace—what is found in a God-fearing home—provides the ideal setting for the growth of righteousness and its fruit. Such homes produce upstanding, productive individuals who build society, not tear it down with hostile acts that disturb the peace. Ultimately, the entire nation benefits from the godly fear practiced and taught in Christian families.

This is what God wants. He is looking for a home for His offspring in which this peaceful environment will be created in order to produce children in His image—godly seed. In Malachi 2:13-16, God is quite displeased with His people because their marriage relationships had degenerated to the point that husbands were treacherously divorcing their wives for inconsequential reasons, breaking the covenant, the vow, that they had made. They were not creating the proper environment for producing godly seed for His Family.

This third purpose for marriage is a very important one—to produce the right environment for raising children, not for just one's own family, but for God. Again, we see that the physical mirrors the spiritual in this relationship. Even though we are physical beings, God has given us a spiritual component that makes us different from the animals, and when He calls us into His church, He gives us an additional element, His Spirit, that elevates our purpose to a far higher plane. Thus, there is always a higher purpose in everything that we do. We cannot avoid it, as it is the overriding purpose of God Himself.

A fourth purpose for marriage is also found in Genesis 1:28: "God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.'" The two key words here are "subdue" and "dominion," both of which are terms of command and control. The fourth purpose, then, deals with marriage providing a basis for proper government.

"Dominion" has thrown many people off-track, assuming that God means autocratic, despotic rule. However, any dictionary will show that dominion is nothing more than "supreme authority" or "sovereignty." The Hebrew word, rādâ, implies exercising authority over those who are under one's control, whether a king over his kingdom or an employer over his employees. It does not necessarily suggest harsh, cruel governance.

"Subdue" (Hebrew kābaš), however, can have this implication. Nevertheless, subjecting creation to human benefit or people to God's way does not have to be done with rigor. Severity should be applied only when there is steadfast, defiant resistance, and then only as necessary. The two words together provide a wide range of means for mankind to order and govern what he has been given. Of course, God does not intend for humanity to go beyond the authority He has entrusted to it, either in terms of scope or of application.

So, as these opening instructions to mankind indicate, God uses marriage to teach us how to govern. Marriage teaches us how it is done best, specifically as God Himself governs. God is a Father, and He has a Son who is the Head of the church. We in the church comprise the Son's wife, His Bride, and we are learning how to rule with the Son forever in His Kingdom. A primary institution that God created to teach us this is marriage, the very same institution into which we will soon enter with His Son. Again, we see the physical blending into the spiritual.

In our physical lives, most of us begin to live within the family as a child, and from that position of weakness and immaturity, we learn how to be ruled, to submit, and to learn and grow as a subordinate. We learn what it is like to be under authority. Later, as we grow in maturity, we take on more responsibilities and experience more freedom. If we are alert and smart, we learn many facets of how to rule ourselves and thus how to govern others.

When ready, we take up the challenge of living at the next level of authority as a husband or wife. We learn, in that role, other things that teach us about government and how best to handle situations. First, we must become accustomed to living with our new mate, ruling ourselves and providing direction to a developing family as a spouse.

Then, sometimes suddenly, we have to learn how to govern little ones. As they grow, we learn different ways—better ways—to govern them at their various levels. The diverse situations that arise in life lend themselves to learning new and different approaches that will lead to better outcomes. The family and our changing roles within it teach us how to do that.

The godly family, beginning with marriage followed by the rearing of children, teaches us how to govern. Along with the Bible, it gives us most, if not all, the necessary instruction that we need. These experiences over time become part of our characters, which we will carry through the grave. We will have those experiences to draw upon when similar instances arise among those who will be subject to us into God's Kingdom.

The basic tools, provided to us through God's instruction and applied in the Christian family, prepare us to rule in God's Kingdom and to teach the right and proper way to live.

Marriage—A God-Plane Relationship (Part Three)

Last time, we saw that it is God's involvement that provides the blessings and advantages to the Christian marriage. He makes Himself a party to the marriage covenant, binding the agreement and elevating it spiritually so that it can function as a superior environment for character growth and preparation for the Kingdom of God. With God participating in our marriages, the power is available to make it successful.

However, this does not imply that an individual is a failure if his or her marriage does not work; sometimes the odds are stacked against a person's success. Not every marriage is going to be perfect and work out perfectly—in fact, very few will be absolutely seamless because we are, after all, still human. Yet, a Christian has a clear advantage over others since God's power, gifts, and blessing are there for the asking and use.

Those of us who are married should take this to heart and grab onto this blessing as if it were a lifeline. It is there as a cushion and a help for us in our marriages because, no matter what two people they are and how much they have in common, the couple who makes a vow to share their lives until death parts them are quite different as individuals. They will never agree completely on everything. So, to make the marriage work to its fullest potential, God's blessing and involvement are absolutely necessary.

We have seen that God blesses marriage in the first chapter of Genesis, and it is interesting that as the Book nears its end, in Revelation 19, marriage and His blessing on it once again take center stage. Clearly, the institution of marriage has a far higher purpose than just the physical union of a man and a woman.

And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude, as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty thunderings, saying, "Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns! Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready." And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. Then he said to me, "Write: ‘Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb!'" And he said to me, "These are the true sayings of God." (Revelation 19:6-9)

Here we have a prophetic portrayal of the ultimate marriage, and God's blessing goes out to those who comprise the wife—the bride—of Jesus Christ. This blessing in Revelation 19:9 gives the blessing in Genesis 1:28 its true context. Our human marriages are types of this greater spiritual marriage. The experiences that we go through during a blessed physical marriage are designed by God to prepare us for our part in the ultimate intimate relationship with our Savior.

Marriage is a representation on the human plane of union between God and man. A similar intimacy exists in both relationships. Just as the sexual bond between a man and woman makes them "one flesh" (Genesis 2:24; see I Corinthians 6:16), a close, spiritual unity between God and a converted human being—which Jesus says is "to know" God in John 17:3 (compare this term to the sexual imagery of Genesis 4:1)—makes them "one spirit." On this, the apostle Paul writes in I Corinthians 6:17, "But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him" (see also Ephesians 4:4). Physical marriage, then, can teach us how to be spiritually one with God.

Just as surely as God will bless the union between His Son and the Bride, He will also endue the physical type with the ability to fulfill its purpose—that is, to create unity between marriage partners to prepare them for union with God.

A third purpose of marriage is found in Genesis 1:28: "God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth. . . .'" God provides marriage to produce children, and evidently, He wants many of them! The Catholic Church teaches that the primary reason for marriage is to produce children, but spiritually, it is secondary to God's higher purpose. Certainly, marriage is the only union so authorized and blessed to produce children. This purpose contains all the sexual aspects to marriage relations, as regulated by the seventh commandment, "You shall not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy 5:18).

Children produced outside of the marriage union will automatically be burdened by severe disadvantages. Beyond the emotional troubles inherent in illegitimacy, single-parent households are typically poorer than the average and are powerless to improve. The harried single parent is forced to work long hours at his job or several jobs, decreasing the precious time that every parent needs to give to his children. In this situation, children often spend a great deal of time alone and undisciplined, frequently finding themselves in trouble with teachers and administrators, neighbors, and law enforcement. As a result, they often feel unloved, abandoned, and at odds with the world, and many end up repeating the sins of their parents.

Only within marriage and the traditional family can children have the best environment to produce, not just secure, peaceful, useful lives, but also the discipline and character to have the image of God created in them. This does not preclude a child produced outside of marriage from God's calling, although it can make matters more difficult. By the same token, not every child who grows up in a traditional Christian family will answer God's summons to belief and repentance. However, marriage provides the best and the only God-sanctioned relationship for the conception, bearing, and rearing of children. If a child begins his life in the proper environment, he has a head start on reaching both his physical and spiritual potentials.

These purposes of marriage always seem to return to the idea that God is reproducing Himself. The lawful union of man and wife is a vital first step in this process. Once God binds them together and they conceive a child, they bring into being another individual who has the potential to be a member of God's Family. This is the way God intends the process to begin.

Then, after parents train them up in the way that they should go (Proverbs 22:6), they turn them over to God for further development as His children. This is one of the great ironies in all of creation: that God gives often young, immature, inexperienced human parents "first crack" at producing children in His image. He places upon them the tremendous responsibility to mold and shape the next generation into the moldable clay that He can work with to shape righteous sons and daughters for His Kingdom.

Nonetheless, it all begins with marriage, the best environment to turn out the ideal product for God to use in reproducing Himself. In Part Four, we will examine a fourth purpose of the marriage institution.

Why Bother With Fathers?

American singer/songwriter Billy Joel, 60, is getting divorced—again. He and his third wife, former Top Chef host Katie Lee, 27, are splitting after five years of marriage. The reasons for their divorce—some say infidelity, some say their age difference—are unclear, but Joel’s daughter, Alexa Ray, 23, says that she knew that the couple was having problems, so the breakup came as no surprise to her.

In providing background for the story, the entertainment pages of various media outlets invariably list Joel’s marital résumé. For instance, The Miami-Herald reports typically, “It's the third marriage for Joel, 60, who was first married to his business manager, Elizabeth Weber, and then to model Christie Brinkley, with whom he has his only daughter, Alexa Ray.” What unfortunately immediately came to mind—totally unbidden—was the thought of a horse pedigree: “Secretariat, son of Bold Ruler, out of Somethingroyal.”

It was one of those instant associations that often provide insight—if not only to one’s own mental state—to the world as it really is. First impressions can be frequently spot on because they are flash evaluations uncolored by subsequent rationalizations, also known as second guesses. At that moment, a person sees things as they are presented right then. In this case, that so many Americans live in yours-mine-and-ours households—not to mention single-parent households due to the dual family scourges of illegitimacy and divorce—is fleetingly reminiscent of the temporary liaisons between studs and brood mares.

While this may seem offensive, it has biblical backing, believe it or not. In Jeremiah 13:27, God castigates Judah, particularly the royal family: “I have seen your adulteries and your lustful neighing, the lewdness of your harlotry, your abominations on the hills in the fields. Woe to you, O Jerusalem! Will you still not be made clean?” Jeremiah seems to be fond of this image, as he uses it again in Jeremiah 5:8: “They were like well-fed lusty stallions; every one neighed after his neighbor’s wife.” Clearly, God is portraying people—who should know better—following their base drives like brute animals.

As steeped in Judeo-Christian values as it is, America is a nation that should know better, yet for at least three generations, the sanctity of marriage has steadily declined among its people until today, when divorce is routine and illegitimacy is commonplace. Back in my grandfather’s day, divorce was still shameful, and most families did not want their sons or daughters marrying a divorced person. However, as society secularized, divorce lost its stigma until no-fault divorce laws swept across the nation. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 20% of marriages are disrupted after five years and one-third of marriages after ten years. As of 2005, the current divorce rate is 3.6 per 1,000 population, while the marriage rate is 7.5 per 1,000, meaning that half of marriages end in divorce.

Further, only in six states—Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah—can someone sue for damages on the basis of alienation of affection in cases of adultery. Most states have recognized that adultery is so commonplace today that a person entering a marriage should expect it to be corrupted by an outside sexual liaison. Caveat emptor now applies to the marriage transaction too.

Another worrying trend is that of women opting for single-motherhood, much as the fictional Murphy Brown did in the sitcom of the same name during the 1991-92 season. It is bad enough when women in their late thirties or early forties, seeing their window of childbearing closing fast, decide to have a child without the benefit of marriage (a category that has grown by 145% since 1980). But it is far worse when young women begin to make the same “lifestyle choice” in their early-to-mid twenties. These days, about 40% of live births in this nation are to single mothers, and in about half of these cases, the mothers are entirely on their own. How many of these young mothers are single mothers by choice is difficult to quantify, but a September 17, 2008, article in The Guardian (U.K.) reports that, there as in this country, “a growing number of young women are now turning to artificial insemination and embracing single motherhood.”

In all of these situations, the disposable factor seems to be the father. Society’s definition of fatherhood seems to be dwindling toward the idea of sperm donation and little more. The father might be replaced—or not, depending on the whim of the mother. As one of the young British women in The Guardian article commented about her daughter, “I think there are some children who grow up perfectly well without male role models—and she has got my father, my brother and my nephew.” Who needs a husband and a father? Any man, whatever the relation, will do.

God did not create the family to work this way. He is very clear in Genesis 2:24, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” Here, He establishes the marriage relationship as the basis of the family. He declares in Malachi 2:16 that He hates divorce, a statement echoed by Jesus’ teaching on divorce in Matthew 19:6-9.

In the seventh commandment, God forbids sexual activity outside of marriage (Exodus 20:14). Later, in such places as Deuteronomy 23:2, He places the stigma on illegitimacy: “One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD.” He wanted His people to be a nation of whole families because they produced the best products for the benefit of the nation. It is clear from the situation before the Flood that men taking “wives for themselves of all whom they chose” did not produce a cohesive, peaceful society (Genesis 6:2).

This desire for stable families is codified in the fifth of the Ten Commandments: “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you” (Exodus 20:12). Like mothers, fathers are a vital part of the equation whose sum is a well-rounded, secure individual. True, not all fathers are good fathers, and God makes provisions for such cases in His principles on divorce, but more often than not, a father in the home creates a better environment for the raising of children than a home that lacks one. And the more the home’s father and mother love each other and expand their love to their children, the better the environment becomes.

Here in the United States, this Sunday is Father’s Day. As we honor our fathers and husbands, take a moment to consider their importance to the family and to society. It is hoped that it will heighten our gratitude, not only for our human fathers, but our Father in heaven, who really does know best.

The Real Solution to Baggy Pants

Listen (RealAudio)

A few months ago, as my wife and I were bustling through a local Wal-Mart on our weekly shopping "date," we came across a trio of young men slouching their way down a main aisle. They were walking three abreast at turtle-time, attempting to look hip and tough, bored with the world but too cool to care. Beyond their attitude, what was attracting attention was that all three of them—in order to walk at all—had to have a firm grip with one or both hands on their pants! They were sporting oversized jeans-shorts, but they might as well have been long pants for as low as these three were wearing them. Yes, it was a baggy-pants sighting. We were lucky—if that is the word—that we were not witnesses to any indecent exposure.

Similar baggy-pants sightings have been happening for some time throughout America. It is primarily an "urban" fashion statement, supposedly an exaggeration of belt-less prison pants endorsed by hip-hop and rap artists, a rebellious sneer at societal conventions. Baggy pants are the latest in a long line of avant-garde clothing styles among young people breaking from the mores and standards of their parents and trying to carve out their own identity. They are modern versions of grunge, punk, mod, hippie, beat, and other youth clothing trends over the past fifty years, as it seems that every new crop of teens feels it must test the culture's boundaries. Remember bell-bottoms and halter-tops?

Let me go on record as saying that the baggy-pants phenomenon is ridiculous. It not only looks stupid, but it may also pose a safety hazard should any baggy-pants wearing youth need to move faster than a slow crawl. One slip from the grip, and a face-plant on the sidewalk is a real possibility. Of course, there is also the problem of indecent exposure.

To combat this trend, several communities—from Atlanta to Charlotte to Dallas to Trenton—have enacted or proposed bans on baggy or saggy pants. These saggy-baggy laws usually mandate a modest fine, but on the extreme end, the Delcambre, Louisiana, "bare-your-britches" law comes with a fine of $500 or six months in jail for the public exposure of underwear. The American Civil Liberties Union is fighting these local ordinances, saying that they are racially discriminatory, targeting only young black males. CNN reports one hip-hop clothing shop owner asking, "Are they going to go after construction workers and plumbers, because their pants sag too? They're stereotyping us."

One problem with this argument is that these laws are primarily proposed and endorsed by black lawmakers, preachers, and community groups concerned about both the public image of African-Americans and the trajectory of a generation of black men. The Trenton, New Jersey, law still being drafted not only assesses a fine, but the offender must also undergo evaluation and counseling regarding the direction of his life. Turning the racial bias argument on its head, some proponents argue that the wearing of baggy pants automatically stereotypes a young man as a shiftless rebel, causing employers not to hire him, and thus aggravating the problem. In addition, the fad has crossed over into general youth culture, so it is not a single-race issue.

Even so, the baggy-pants problem is most critical in the black community. Obviously, politicians and community leaders want to provide a solution to the dilemma—or at least to be seen trying to do something. What is frustrating—and oh-so-typical these days—is that their first spasmodic reaction is to propose, draft, and enact a law to cover the specific infraction that they do not like. Every community in America, however, has at least two ordinances on their books to deal with baggy-pants offenders: indecent exposure and disorderly conduct. These laws are usually vague enough to be used to deal with most situations of nudity or partial nudity and the public reaction to it. They just need to be enforced.

When problems like this arise, we are often quick to cry, "Where are the parents?" Truly, parents are a society's first line of defense in shaping a productive and moral next generation of citizens. It is unfortunate that, in this case, too many urban black families are single-parent households, and the only parent is almost always the mother. By the time her young son reaches his mid-teens, unless she has made extraordinary efforts, he is more likely to conform to his peers than to his mom's advice and desires for his success. It is a terribly sad state of affairs. (See Kay S. Hymowitz, "The Black Family: 40 Years of Lies," City Journal, Summer 2005.)

In this parental near-vacuum, other members of the black community have tried to pick up the slack. Mostly, it has been left-leaning black activist groups that have led the charge, advocating well-known socialist policies like Affirmative Action. Yet, after two generations of political agitation to level the playing field for minorities, family conditions, the root of the problem, have worsened. Churches and their pastors have entered the fray as well, but overall, their impact has been limited. It is a tragic, seemingly hopeless situation.

The solution is not more laws, not more activism, not more money for social programs. The answer is a commitment to marriage. Noted economists Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowell and others regularly preach that the secret to staying out of poverty in America is three-fold: 1) Graduate from high school; 2) get a job and keep it; and 3) get married and stay married. The last point not only provides personal stability, but it also ensures that the next generation grows up in a stable and hopefully loving environment. Statistics consistently show that the two-parent family makes the best platform for continued and increasing success of children of all ethnicities (see "The Mysterious Marriage Advantage," The Family in America, March 2007). The solution really is that simple, though it does take time and effort.

It is for reasons like this that the first institution that God created for humanity was marriage, even before creating the Sabbath (He ordained marriage on the sixth day, the Sabbath on the seventh; compare Genesis 1:27; 2:2-3, 18-24). As God said in the Garden of Eden, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him" (Genesis 2:18). Human beings were made to live in committed, divinely joined pairs, not just for reproductive reasons, but also for deep relational and social reasons. When the institution of marriage breaks down, the whole society begins to crack and crumble.

Baggy pants are just a sign of this breakdown. So, the secret to hitching up our youths' pants is—pardon the pun—getting hitched.

Why We Homeschool

Listen (RealAudio)

Back in the early years of the homeschooling phenomenon, its advocates were largely tie-dyed, granola-munching, back-to-nature, hippie types whose primary goal was to disassociate from just about everything manmade, and certainly from Establishment institutions like the public schools. They fought running battles with local and state governments for the right to teach their children themselves, and—to give them credit where it is due—they had patchy success, especially in more progressive states like California. It is no wonder that homeschooling has the reputation, even today in some quarters, as being a far-out, counter-cultural movement.

However, somewhere about the time of the Reagan Revolution, homeschooling dramatically switched its poles, shifting from a leftist movement to a rightist one. A growing number of religious and social conservatives, frustrated with both the iron grip of liberals (read: teachers' unions and school district administrations) on the country's educational system and the cultural mayhem rising in the public schools, opted to take on the additional burden of teaching their children at home. The movement has grown far beyond anything its pioneers ever imagined.

And a burden it can be. Homeschool parents pay the same taxes for the public schools as everyone else, plus they take on the additional expenses of books, fees, supplies, and miscellaneous costs associated with education. This amounts to hundreds or even thousands of dollars each year, depending on how ambitious they decide to be. A math, science, or history textbook may cost upwards of $50, and the family must still buy teacher's guides and answer keys, and for science, microscopes, test tubes, specimens, etc. There are further outlays of cash if the child desires to participate in any extracurricular activities: art, music, or sports, activities that are usually subsidized in public schools. In addition, foreign language classes—or for that matter, any outside instruction beyond the abilities of the parents—can cost the proverbial arm and/or leg. It must also be factored in that homeschool families must function on only one salary, since one of the parents must stay at home to teach.

Beyond these expenses, it is a burden of time and energy. Homeschooling is a full-time occupation in itself. Not only is there one-on-one instruction, but there are additional activities like lesson-planning, reviewing, testing, grading, experimenting (science again), reading (lots of reading—to stay ahead of the kids!), and taking the students to this, that, and the other class. It is a blessing that, as the student ages, he is able to do a great deal more on his own and with only minimal oversight. Otherwise, the homeschool parent would simply burn out.

At this point, many a reader is probably saying to himself, "Why do it, then?" Despite the fact that homeschooling is not for the faint of heart, its rewards far outweigh the efforts.

Homeschoolers benefit both by what they avoid and by what they receive. Because they are able to assemble their own curriculum, they can steer clear of distasteful and objectionable subjects. For instance, they can (or not) study the theory of evolution in a more balanced way, comparing it with biblical creation and Intelligent Design and emphasizing their preferred understanding. Further, they can replace the oftentimes horribly inappropriate sex-education teaching with a better alternative. They can also avoid humanistic, socialistic, multicultural, and postmodern ideas that have been integrated into textbooks, teaching aids, and lesson plans by teachers, teachers' unions, and school districts. Besides these, they do not have to deal with power-obsessed administrators, holier-than-thou counselors, know-it-all teachers, and scores of undisciplined, Ritalin-candidate students—not to mention a load of perverse cultural influences.

On the flipside, those who homeschool are compensated, though not monetarily, far more than most people who have never tried it realize:

• For starters, the family becomes very close. This may seem paradoxical to those who think spending several hours each day in the near vicinity of their children would drive them to drink. Yet, the time and the shared activities and understanding bind parents and children tightly together, bridging the "generation gap" to a great degree.
• Done well, homeschooling teaches children more thoroughly than public schools do. This comes as a result of more one-on-one instruction and the ability to study a subject in depth. Public school children waste a great deal of time in meaningless activities during school hours (and in their commute to and from school), but at home, a well-organized, disciplined child uses this extra time to read or to pursue an interest spurred by his study. What is more, he still usually finishes his school day earlier than his neighbor who attends a local school!
• A homeschooled child also has a wider variety of subject fields to study than his public-school counterpart. While the public school has a set curriculum and a handful of elective courses, homeschoolers are limited only by time, money, and their communities' offerings. However, with the Internet and easy, fast transportation, they can pursue even exotic topics relatively effortlessly. Whether it is learning Sanskrit, investigating Central American archeology, or studying Australia's marsupials, homeschoolers have the freedom to explore these individual interests.

Nevertheless, homeschooling is not for everyone. Some parents just do not have the inclination or the patience required to do it well. However, it is worth serious consideration for all Christians who desire to minimize the world's influence on their children. God gives to parents the primary responsibility for educating their children, not to worldly schools: "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it" (Proverbs 22:6), and ". . . bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord" (Ephesians 6:4). Homeschooling is a way to be far more involved in our children's growth into godly, mature adults.

'We Live to the Lord'

How many of us—Christians, disciples of our Savior Jesus Christ, begotten children of God—lead lives based on the principle the apostle Paul presents in Romans 14:7-8?

For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's.

This apostolic pronouncement, confirmed in numerous passages throughout the Bible, runs counter to the prevailing philosophy of this age. Our American society—as well as other modern and postmodern societies around the world—is built on the concept of individualism. Just a few centuries ago, people believed that "no man is an island," but over the intervening decades a spirit of personal independence has grown to become a central tenet that influences every facet of life.

Perhaps the last two remaining vestiges of the older way of thinking exist in family ties and teamwork, and both of these are slipping away at a frightening rate. Progressives have sought and succeeded in redefining family to include just about anyone living under a single roof, no matter how they might be related by blood or marriage—or not. As for teamwork, all one has to do is watch just about any team sport and the trend becomes readily apparent. Business has kept team spirit alive, but the fundamental reason for it comes down to individual profit.

It would be interesting to ask a significant sample of the population, "What do you live for?" The answers, of course, would be many and varied, but it is probable that they would boil down to a few major categories:

• Self
• Family
• Wealth
• Power
• Fame/Prestige
• Excitement/Risk/Adventure
• Knowledge
• Altruism/Philanthropy
• Nothing/Uncertain
• Spiritual/Religious Reasons

Obviously, some of these overlap or go hand-in-hand, but most of them are fundamentally self-centered and self-aggrandizing. Even "family," "altruism/philanthropy," and "spiritual/religious reasons" have selfish angles. Because we are human, we have a terribly hard time—perhaps an impossible one—extricating our baser selves from even our highest aspirations. In even the most altruistic among us is a desire to satisfy one's own desires.

Yet, through the apostle Paul, God lays down a guiding principle that human nature makes almost impossible to live up to: "We live to the Lord." Perhaps had God called us out of a culture of slavery, as those in the first century were, we would be better suited to do this. But He did not. He called us out of the most individualistic, materialistic culture that has ever existed on the planet, perhaps rivaled only by the days before the Flood (Genesis 6:5) and the chaotic period of Israel’s judges when "everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25).

God must think that it is possible, even for us. This is not to say that it is easy. It takes faith, courage, perseverance, and a great deal of vision to wrench one’s thoughts, words, and actions out of the raging current of this world (Ephesians 2:2) and to paddle in the opposite direction. It is mentally and emotionally exhausting, and progress is often slow—and sometimes nonexistent and even retrograde! However, the effort is beneficial in itself, teaching us valuable lessons and building essential traits of character.

So, how are we doing?

Do we "do all to the glory of God" (I Corinthians 10:31)? We should not consider this in just the major matters of life but in the minor details, for if we set our minds to honor God in the little matters, we will already be in the habit of doing so when the big ones arise (see Luke 16:10). As His representatives on earth, it is vital that whoever observes us sees a reflection of Him in us.

Do we give "thanks always for all things to God" (Ephesians 5:20)? In this day of rudeness and incivility, gratitude is a misunderstood and often undervalued virtue. However, gratitude teaches obligation and acknowledgement of providence. Being thankful keeps our minds trained on the fact that, without God, we would have nothing, and thus we owe Him our obedience as our kind Benefactor.

Do we "live by faith in the Son of God, who loved [us] and gave Himself for [us]" (Galatians 2:20)? Living by faith means that we follow Jesus' teaching no matter where it leads us because He owns us wholly and completely by His redemptive work. So, if God's Word says, "Come out from among them and be separate" (II Corinthians 6:17), we should be doing our very best to reject the anti-God practices of this world, no matter what they are and what may result. We do this because we implicitly trust our Savior.

Paul writes in Philippians 1:21: "For to me, to live is Christ." Do we think this way? Do Jesus Christ, His teaching, and His desires for us fill our lives to the extent that they are our lives? That is what Paul means: His every waking moment was lived with Christ foremost in mind: obeying Him, glorifying Him, thanking Him, pleasing Him. If we do this—if we try to do this—we will make great strides toward being prepared for (Revelation 19:7) and hastening (II Peter 3:12) the establishment of God’s Kingdom.