Luke 6:38. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap; for the measure you give will be the measure you get back.’
Mark 4:20. And these are the ones sown on the good soil: they hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty and sixty and a hundredfold.’
2 Corinthians 9:6-15. 6 The point is this: the one who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and the one who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7Each of you must give as you have made up your mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8And God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that by always having enough of everything, you may share abundantly in every good work. 9As it is written,
‘He scatters abroad, he gives to the poor;
his righteousness endures for ever.’
10He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness. 11You will be enriched in every way for your great generosity, which will produce thanksgiving to God through us; 12for the rendering of this ministry not only supplies the needs of the saints but also overflows with many thanksgivings to God. 13Through the testing of this ministry you glorify God by your obedience to the confession of the gospel of Christ and by the generosity of your sharing with them and with all others, 14while they long for you and pray for you because of the surpassing grace of God that he has given you. 15Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift!
Last Sunday we began a series of talks about giving. We started with giving in the Old Testament giving. Today we continue with New Testament giving.
We said that the law did not invent tithing; that it was already practiced among pagan worshipers before Israel became a nation with laws. The law merely regulated how and where the tithes were to be given. Therefore we cannot use the law as an excuse for not tithing.
But we also said that tithing saved Israel from the demonic excesses of other forms of pagan worship. There were no children to be burned, no wives were to serve as temple prostitutes and no eunuchs. The tithe was a sober, mathematically precise manner of giving. This precision is the hallmark of an orderly life, life that is not based on caprice and whimsy. It is not enough to say, “I forgot what the preacher said but it was good.” The practice of tithing helps us to involve the mind in worship and removes capricious and emotional giving which can be disastrous at times.
Tithing then is methodical, precise, a rational mode of worship that is the foundation for an orderly manner of living. There are two fundamental ways in which NT giving differs from OT giving.
1. First, too much method and preciseness in giving can also mean being exacting and calculating, in the negative sense of the term. It is the shield of those who don’t want to give any more than they have to give. These are the people who say to God, “I have given you your fair share; now let me do with mine what I please.”
That is hardly the attitude of one who has experienced God’s grace. We are God’s not once but twice, once by virtue of creation and second by virtue of redemption. We no longer belong to ourselves but utterly and completely Christ’s. It seems to me that we people of grace should do more than the people of the law, not to do less.
The ungrateful does not understand nor appreciate grace. That ingratitude takes him down below the level of the calculating Jew who counts his tithe of cumin. Not only that, it places him below the pagan who sacrifices child and wife to his divinity.
Gratitude distinguishes giving under grace from giving under law. The motive power of the law is fear. Malachi calls those who fail to tithe as thieves. And robbery is a punishable crime. Punishment can only go so far in making a person behave. You know how Filipino drivers behave. They have been fined so many times and yet they never learn.
Gratitude never forgets. If people forget it may be they never really have experienced salvation in the first place. Have you really experienced God’s forgiveness? Have you really experienced being released from Satan’s grip? Have you really experienced deliverance from fear? hopelessness? Have you really experienced healing? If so, how can you be stingy to God? How can you forget?
2. The second fundamental difference between NT giving and giving under the law is this: the tithe is primarily division but giving in the NT is multiplication. Tithe is one over ten. I give to God what I owe to a landlord. It is his share. What I give to God diminishes what remains in my possession. This is the main reason why many who have good intentions fail to deliver. If I have difficulty with ten tenths how can I manage with nine tenths? The NT speaks a completely different language when it speaks of giving. It is the language of multiplication. It is the language of sowing and reaping, or in the language of the entrepreneur, investment and gain.
In Matthew 13, Jesus likens the kingdom of God to seed being sown. If the seed falls on good soil, its harvest is several times-fold the amount of the seed sown. In 2 Cor 9, Paul uses the same analogy. Whoever sows sparingly will reap sparingly; whoever sows generously will also reap generously. V 6. “He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness,” v 10. God will not only increase the harvest; he will also increase your store of seed. In business terms this means not only an increase of profit but an increase of capital.
The NT answers a question posed by economics. Can wealth be created or can it only be distributed? If wealth is finite, for you to get my share is to diminish mine while it increases yours. That is an injustice.
But if wealth can be created, then I can increase my store of wealth without necessarily diminishing yours. This creation of wealth has happened in unbelievable ways within our lifetime. It used to be that wealth is tied up with land and mineral resources. Not anymore. Property is no longer measurable in terms of meters and kilograms. Property is no longer hard but soft. The only raw material of a computer is a small grain of sand that possesses the characteristic of a semiconductor, a material that acts as a gate to open or close the flow of electrons with the speed of light. There is far more wealth in creating software than in making computer hardware. What counts today is creativity of ideas. You don’t even have to invent a completely new product, just improve that one that is already existing. A computer screen that will filter the glare away cheaply. A non-slip cell phone casing. Paper that will degrade rapidly and help in composting. An inexpensive design for healthy and low carbon demand Filipino homes and buildings. In the 60 years since liberation the Filipino jeepney design has not been improved. They are ugly and uncomfortable. They are still made by hand in backyard shops using engines thrown away from Japan. It is waiting for somebody with a good idea.
The words of the Bible are unbelievable. Listen to this: “You will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion” v 11. I don’t know how anybody can interpret this other than what it simply says here.
It is God’s intention to enrich his people. Do you believe God is blest by our poverty? Do you believe God is blest by our misery? God may be glorified despite our poverty, despite our misery, despite our sickness but not because of them.
God is honored when his power and goodness is manifested in our lives. God is glorified when we are generous because of the riches he has bestowed upon our lives. God is exalted when we have become givers and not only receivers.
But haven’t we heard this before? Isn’t this OT teaching also? Didn’t God say if we tithe he will open the windows of heaven and pour out a blessing there will be no room to receive them?
Yes, of course but the premise is different. God’s blessing is conditioned in the Old Testament by obedience to his law. When in the OT the people failed to tithe, God shut the windows of heaven. Instead of blessing, the people were cursed. Enemies overcame them. Locusts devoured their produce. Famine stalked the land.
We do not hear such curses in the NT. For here the premise is different. The blessing of God in the NT is not conditioned by obedience but by faith. Grace does not operate by fear of the law but by faith in the promises of God.
If Jesus could not perform miracles in Galilee and Judah it was not because people failed to heed the law but because they did not believe. We are poor not so much because we are disobedient but because can’t summon the will to believe. Our failure does not lie in not living up to the commandments but in unwillingness to try so that we can experience the power of faith. When Jesus said, give and it shall be given unto you he was counting on his hearers to demonstrate faith.
Whether it is listening to Jesus’ call to salvation or listening to Jesus’ call to fish, the formula is still the same: by grace through faith. That opens the possibility of wealth open to everyone.
Grace appears to us when we toil all night and there is no fish. Experience tells us that when the moon is full the fish won’t be attracted by the light of our lamps. Not last night, not tonight. Not tomorrow night, And certainly not in broad daylight.
But Jesus calls us, “Children, come to the deep.” Grace always comes to us as a challenge. In salvation we accept the challenge to put our faith in the finished work of Christ upon the cross and say, “He died for me.” In the miracle of provision we put our faith in the promise of Jesus, “Give and it shall be given you, pressed down, shaken together and running over.”
The most important word said by Peter was “nevertheless.” It changed the conversation from “We toiled all night” and “We caught nothing” into “At your word we will go the deep and let down the net.”
Conclusion
Some of you are facing tough situations. This is not the kind of message that want to hear. You want something soothing. A pat in the back. A word of comfort. But if you are toiling and catching nothing. If you have little to show for your labor. If an unforeseen situation has come that is turning all your plans upside down. If you are facing an enemy. What you need is not a pat in the back but a word of faith.
So this morning let’s apply this message to our giving. I want us to give like we have not given before. To give beyond the tithe, beyond calculation and exacting measurement. To give in gratitude and to give in faith. I want the ushers to give every one an opportunity to give. Not as though we are ashamed of what we are doing. That would be robbery. After we have given I would like us to pray God to release his creative, enriching ideas upon us. Come let’s pray for each other.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Memo to Worship Bands
Here is an article from Christianity Today that I encourage our worship team to read. Articles posted from sources other than me do not always reflect my own opinion. They are meant to be used for discussion. So I welcome your comments. dionson '09
______________________
Memo to Worship Bands
Five sound reasons to lower the volume.
Christianity Today
John G. Stackhouse Jr. | posted 2/02/2009 10:41AM
Can you hear me? You can? I'm sorry if I am shouting, but I have just spent half an hour in a church service with a typical worship band, and my ears are ringing. I'm sure to be fine in a minute. Or hour. Or day—I hope.
Why does everything every Christian musician performs nowadays seem to require high amplification?
I was at a Christian camp not long ago where we gathered to sing around a bonfire. Guitars appeared, but just before I could get nostalgic and suggest we sing "Pass It On," the microphone stands appeared, too. Apparently three guitars for 40 people were not enough. No, they had to be amplified.
I am not 110 years old, friends. I grew up in the 1970s with fuzz boxes, stacks of Marshall amplifiers, and heavy metal bands loud enough to take on Boeing 747s and win. I have played in worship bands for more than 30 years, and like lots of juice running through my Roland keyboard or Fender bass or Godin guitar. Furthermore, I'm a middle-aged man and my hearing is supposed to be fading. But even I find almost every worship band in every church I visit to be too loud—not just a little bit loud, but uncomfortably, even painfully, loud.
So here are five reasons for everyone to turn it down a notch—or maybe three or four.
First, I know it's breaking the performer's code to say so (the way magicians are never supposed to reveal a secret), but cranking up the volume is just a cheap trick to add energy to a room. The comedic film This Is Spinal Tap showed us all the absurdity of using sheer noise to compensate for a lack of talent. (The knobs on the band members' guitars and amplifiers were modified to go to 11.) Do not compensate for mediocrity by amping it up to MEDIOCRITY.
Second, when your intonation is not very good—and let's face it, most singers and instrumentalists are not anywhere close to being in perfect tune—turning it up only makes it hurt worse. If I hear one more "harmony singer" have trouble deciding whether to hit the major or the minor third and instead split the difference at a scalp-tightening volume, I think my head will split also.
Third, the speakers in most church PA systems cannot take that much energy through their small, old magnets and cones, especially from piano, bass, and kick drum. So we are being pounded with high-powered fluffing and sputtering—which do not induce praise.
Fourth, consider that you might be marginalizing older people, most of whom probably do not like Guns N' Roses volumes at church. And if you suspect older congregants may be secretly delighted behind their tight smiles, ask them. I dare you.
Fifth, let me drop some church history and theology on you. By the time church music matured into Palestrina and Co. in the 16th century, it had become too demanding and ornate for ordinary singers. So Christians went to church to listen to a priest and a choir.
The Protestant Reformation yanked musical worship away from the professionals and put it back in the pews. Luther composed hymns based on popular melodies, including drinking songs. Calvin insisted on taking lyrics from the Psalms. This was music in which almost anyone could participate. The problem today, to be sure, is rarely elaborate music. We could use a little more artistry, in fact, than we usually get with the simplistic and repetitive musical figures of many contemporary worship songs.
No, the contrast with the Reformation is the modern-day insistence that a few people at the front be the center of attention. We do it by making six band members louder than a room full of people. But a church service isn't a concert at which an audience sings along with the real performers. Musicians—every one of them, including the singers—are accompanists to the congregation's praise. They should be mixed loudly enough only to do their job of leading and supporting the congregation.
Now, I like Palestrina and I like good Christian rock. So, church musicians, if you want to perform a fine song that requires advanced musicianship, by all means do it. We will listen and pray and enjoy it to the glory of God.
But when you are leading us in singing, then lead us in singing. And turn it down so we are not listening to you—or, even worse, merely enduring you. I know that is not what you want to happen. But I am telling you that's what is happening.
Sorry, again, for shouting.
John G. Stackhouse Jr. is the Sangwoo Youtong Chee Professor of Theology and Culture at Regent College in Vancouver, Canada. His most recent book is Making the Best of It: Following Christ in the Real World (Oxford University Press).
______________________
Memo to Worship Bands
Five sound reasons to lower the volume.
Christianity Today
John G. Stackhouse Jr. | posted 2/02/2009 10:41AM
Can you hear me? You can? I'm sorry if I am shouting, but I have just spent half an hour in a church service with a typical worship band, and my ears are ringing. I'm sure to be fine in a minute. Or hour. Or day—I hope.
Why does everything every Christian musician performs nowadays seem to require high amplification?
I was at a Christian camp not long ago where we gathered to sing around a bonfire. Guitars appeared, but just before I could get nostalgic and suggest we sing "Pass It On," the microphone stands appeared, too. Apparently three guitars for 40 people were not enough. No, they had to be amplified.
I am not 110 years old, friends. I grew up in the 1970s with fuzz boxes, stacks of Marshall amplifiers, and heavy metal bands loud enough to take on Boeing 747s and win. I have played in worship bands for more than 30 years, and like lots of juice running through my Roland keyboard or Fender bass or Godin guitar. Furthermore, I'm a middle-aged man and my hearing is supposed to be fading. But even I find almost every worship band in every church I visit to be too loud—not just a little bit loud, but uncomfortably, even painfully, loud.
So here are five reasons for everyone to turn it down a notch—or maybe three or four.
First, I know it's breaking the performer's code to say so (the way magicians are never supposed to reveal a secret), but cranking up the volume is just a cheap trick to add energy to a room. The comedic film This Is Spinal Tap showed us all the absurdity of using sheer noise to compensate for a lack of talent. (The knobs on the band members' guitars and amplifiers were modified to go to 11.) Do not compensate for mediocrity by amping it up to MEDIOCRITY.
Second, when your intonation is not very good—and let's face it, most singers and instrumentalists are not anywhere close to being in perfect tune—turning it up only makes it hurt worse. If I hear one more "harmony singer" have trouble deciding whether to hit the major or the minor third and instead split the difference at a scalp-tightening volume, I think my head will split also.
Third, the speakers in most church PA systems cannot take that much energy through their small, old magnets and cones, especially from piano, bass, and kick drum. So we are being pounded with high-powered fluffing and sputtering—which do not induce praise.
Fourth, consider that you might be marginalizing older people, most of whom probably do not like Guns N' Roses volumes at church. And if you suspect older congregants may be secretly delighted behind their tight smiles, ask them. I dare you.
Fifth, let me drop some church history and theology on you. By the time church music matured into Palestrina and Co. in the 16th century, it had become too demanding and ornate for ordinary singers. So Christians went to church to listen to a priest and a choir.
The Protestant Reformation yanked musical worship away from the professionals and put it back in the pews. Luther composed hymns based on popular melodies, including drinking songs. Calvin insisted on taking lyrics from the Psalms. This was music in which almost anyone could participate. The problem today, to be sure, is rarely elaborate music. We could use a little more artistry, in fact, than we usually get with the simplistic and repetitive musical figures of many contemporary worship songs.
No, the contrast with the Reformation is the modern-day insistence that a few people at the front be the center of attention. We do it by making six band members louder than a room full of people. But a church service isn't a concert at which an audience sings along with the real performers. Musicians—every one of them, including the singers—are accompanists to the congregation's praise. They should be mixed loudly enough only to do their job of leading and supporting the congregation.
Now, I like Palestrina and I like good Christian rock. So, church musicians, if you want to perform a fine song that requires advanced musicianship, by all means do it. We will listen and pray and enjoy it to the glory of God.
But when you are leading us in singing, then lead us in singing. And turn it down so we are not listening to you—or, even worse, merely enduring you. I know that is not what you want to happen. But I am telling you that's what is happening.
Sorry, again, for shouting.
John G. Stackhouse Jr. is the Sangwoo Youtong Chee Professor of Theology and Culture at Regent College in Vancouver, Canada. His most recent book is Making the Best of It: Following Christ in the Real World (Oxford University Press).
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Laws of Prosperity: The Old Testament
Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in my house, and thus put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts; see if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you an overflowing blessing. you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. Malachi 3:10
I understand the dilemma that many decent and sensitive pastors face when they have to speak about money in the church. It seems to be self-serving. Even Paul struggled with the issue of whether or not to accept support from the churches. I have one advantage over other pastors in this regard. I have work of my own. I have waived aside the right of remuneration. Because of this I cannot be accused that I preach of this topic for my own advantage.
Early in my Christian life I found the blessedness of giving. As a working student in Bible school I had to work three hours Tuesday through Saturday and then 7 hours on Mondays. My job was digging foundations, mixing cement. I learned the art of laying stones to make retaining walls.
For all that work we received a Bible school education, room and board and a stipend of two pesos every month, the present equivalent is about P200. That money had to be carefully budgeted. First item in the budget was always the tithe of two pesos. The remaining one peso ninety centavos went by order of priority to toilet soap, toothpaste, pomade, laundry soap, charcoal for ironing, and school supplies. I always carried a pocket notebook to take notes in church. At the back I wrote some of the things I could not afford from my two peso stipend. A mosquito net, a pair of shoes, a Bible. I forgot about them. A year later In looked at my notes again and I was surprised. I had all of them! I scrawled at the bottom of the page. “Lord, you’ve done it; thank you!” I began collecting books for a library while still in Bible school. I began saving to buy Christian books. I had to be careful what I buy; and today books bought back in 1959 are still with me: C S Lewis and James Denney among others.
Because of my experience it never occurred to me that people would object to the giving of tithes. I just assumed that people would give tithes if they were taught.
One of the most common arguments against tithing is that we are no longer under law but under grace. This argument not only exalts the law too much but also cheapens grace. This Sunday let me just speak about the first.
Exalting the law too much
I say it exalts the law too much because it assumes that Old Testament believers were happy go lucky, lazy and adulterous thieves until the law came along. Far from the truth.
Take Abraham for example. He lived perhaps half a millennium before Moses received the law from God in Sinai. There was no temple, no regular worship, no priesthood, no nation. Yet Abraham was already giving tithes in Genesis 14. So why did Abraham gave tithes to Milchezedek?
The answer is simple. Tithing was already a universal religious practice long before God called Abraham and long before Israel became a nation. The instinct to go to a holy presence with an offering is a universal instinct. And the tithe answered the question, how much should a worshiper give to his God?
God could have made us with six fingers to our hand. Then we would count by the dozens. But he made us with ten fingers because with the base of ten we can perform the easiest as well as the most complex mathematical calculations. The tithe is a mathematical figure, it is the tenth. What the tithe did was to rationalize worship. Worship is not all feelings. It involves the mind. The tithe answers the question, how much should I bring to the Lord? The tithe takes away the guesswork. It is precise.
As Filipinos we have difficulty with precision. You ask what time do we hold our 2nd service and you get the answer,”Mga alas dies.” Around 10 o’clock. How good was the message? Medyo. What did the pastor talk about? Kuan. Mga and medyo and kuan are the cities of refuge of the uncertain, the imprecise mind.
That is the reason why many Filipinos have problems with mathematics. And without math there is no science, without science there is no industry. Without industry we simply become hewers of wood and drawers of water for other nations, consumers of their produce.
Tithing puts preciseness in the way we manage our resources. Because we know that money is not ours we budget it carefully. We do not spend money on a whim. But most of all we consider money as a means of worshipping God. This is the kind of thing that develops the habits that lead to progress.
Tithing puts a check on wild, emotional and dangerous forms of spending our resources.
Jephthah
We find this emotionalism in a strange character in the 10th chapter of the book of Judges. Jephthah had a sad childhood. He was the son of a prostitute but he grew up in the family of his father’s wife. Naturally this led to trouble. Furthermore the legal children didn’t want Jephthah to have a part in their inheritance. So they drove him away. Jephthah was a born leader and warrior, so when the Ammonites threatened the tribes of Israel who would come to visit but his own brothers. They begged him to lead the army. Before meeting the Ammonites, Jephthah prayed, “Lord if you make me win this battle, the first to greet me on my return, I will sacrifice as a burnt offering.”
The vow was unnecessary. It was rashly spoken. Jephthah the outcast wanted so much to win this battle. It was meant to send a message to his brothers. He, despised son of a prostitute, is better than them. In coming to seek his aid, the brothers were eating humble pie. But he wanted far more. And whatever it was he wanted the result was tragic. The first to meet him at the door was his own daughter. She requested only two months to bewail her virginity upon the mountains of Gilead.
Emotional giving is costly. It is the kind of giving that demonic pagan worship demands. Walking over live coals. Lying on a bed of nails. Human sacrifice. Temple prostitution. Tithing casts away the demonic from worship. All the nations who practiced these excessive emotional and self-destructive forms of worship eventually vanished. Emotional giving is the kind of giving that cults exploit.
If we don’t want to give our tithes to God then watch out for other gods. People who will not give a tithe to the Lord yet will blow that away in one expensive dinner. Christians who will not give tithe but will keep on buying the latest gadgets. Christians who will not give tithes but are forever decorating and redecorating their homes to keep up with the neighbor. Christians who will not give their tithes but have a secret love affair. These are habits that lead to impoverishment.
As I said it was giving too much credit to the law to say that the practice of tithing came out of the law. The law did not invent tithing. It was already there. Pagans practiced it long before the law was given. What the law did was to regulate the method of tithing, especially where and how the tithe was to be deposited. Provision was made so that there were storehouses manned by priests and Levites throughout the land, a portion of which was sent up to the temple In Jerusalem. Bring all the tithes to the storehouse. That is all the law did. Bring the tithe to the church and offer it to the Lord. That is what the law accomplished.
Conclusion
Let me say it again. Tithing puts mathematical preciseness in the way we manage our resources. You will find orderliness in your life. You will learn to manage your resources. You will avoid the excesses and habits that drain your resources. These are prerequisites to progress whether you are a laborer or a professional or an entrepreneur.
The starting point is to acknowledge God as the source of supply and give him at least what other worshipers have done since the dawn of time. If you haven’t practiced it begin now. If irregular do it regularly. If you give only a fraction try to give the full tithe.
When you tithe you will be surprised what other levels of your life will be affected for the better.
I understand the dilemma that many decent and sensitive pastors face when they have to speak about money in the church. It seems to be self-serving. Even Paul struggled with the issue of whether or not to accept support from the churches. I have one advantage over other pastors in this regard. I have work of my own. I have waived aside the right of remuneration. Because of this I cannot be accused that I preach of this topic for my own advantage.
Early in my Christian life I found the blessedness of giving. As a working student in Bible school I had to work three hours Tuesday through Saturday and then 7 hours on Mondays. My job was digging foundations, mixing cement. I learned the art of laying stones to make retaining walls.
For all that work we received a Bible school education, room and board and a stipend of two pesos every month, the present equivalent is about P200. That money had to be carefully budgeted. First item in the budget was always the tithe of two pesos. The remaining one peso ninety centavos went by order of priority to toilet soap, toothpaste, pomade, laundry soap, charcoal for ironing, and school supplies. I always carried a pocket notebook to take notes in church. At the back I wrote some of the things I could not afford from my two peso stipend. A mosquito net, a pair of shoes, a Bible. I forgot about them. A year later In looked at my notes again and I was surprised. I had all of them! I scrawled at the bottom of the page. “Lord, you’ve done it; thank you!” I began collecting books for a library while still in Bible school. I began saving to buy Christian books. I had to be careful what I buy; and today books bought back in 1959 are still with me: C S Lewis and James Denney among others.
Because of my experience it never occurred to me that people would object to the giving of tithes. I just assumed that people would give tithes if they were taught.
One of the most common arguments against tithing is that we are no longer under law but under grace. This argument not only exalts the law too much but also cheapens grace. This Sunday let me just speak about the first.
Exalting the law too much
I say it exalts the law too much because it assumes that Old Testament believers were happy go lucky, lazy and adulterous thieves until the law came along. Far from the truth.
Take Abraham for example. He lived perhaps half a millennium before Moses received the law from God in Sinai. There was no temple, no regular worship, no priesthood, no nation. Yet Abraham was already giving tithes in Genesis 14. So why did Abraham gave tithes to Milchezedek?
The answer is simple. Tithing was already a universal religious practice long before God called Abraham and long before Israel became a nation. The instinct to go to a holy presence with an offering is a universal instinct. And the tithe answered the question, how much should a worshiper give to his God?
God could have made us with six fingers to our hand. Then we would count by the dozens. But he made us with ten fingers because with the base of ten we can perform the easiest as well as the most complex mathematical calculations. The tithe is a mathematical figure, it is the tenth. What the tithe did was to rationalize worship. Worship is not all feelings. It involves the mind. The tithe answers the question, how much should I bring to the Lord? The tithe takes away the guesswork. It is precise.
As Filipinos we have difficulty with precision. You ask what time do we hold our 2nd service and you get the answer,”Mga alas dies.” Around 10 o’clock. How good was the message? Medyo. What did the pastor talk about? Kuan. Mga and medyo and kuan are the cities of refuge of the uncertain, the imprecise mind.
That is the reason why many Filipinos have problems with mathematics. And without math there is no science, without science there is no industry. Without industry we simply become hewers of wood and drawers of water for other nations, consumers of their produce.
Tithing puts preciseness in the way we manage our resources. Because we know that money is not ours we budget it carefully. We do not spend money on a whim. But most of all we consider money as a means of worshipping God. This is the kind of thing that develops the habits that lead to progress.
Tithing puts a check on wild, emotional and dangerous forms of spending our resources.
Jephthah
We find this emotionalism in a strange character in the 10th chapter of the book of Judges. Jephthah had a sad childhood. He was the son of a prostitute but he grew up in the family of his father’s wife. Naturally this led to trouble. Furthermore the legal children didn’t want Jephthah to have a part in their inheritance. So they drove him away. Jephthah was a born leader and warrior, so when the Ammonites threatened the tribes of Israel who would come to visit but his own brothers. They begged him to lead the army. Before meeting the Ammonites, Jephthah prayed, “Lord if you make me win this battle, the first to greet me on my return, I will sacrifice as a burnt offering.”
The vow was unnecessary. It was rashly spoken. Jephthah the outcast wanted so much to win this battle. It was meant to send a message to his brothers. He, despised son of a prostitute, is better than them. In coming to seek his aid, the brothers were eating humble pie. But he wanted far more. And whatever it was he wanted the result was tragic. The first to meet him at the door was his own daughter. She requested only two months to bewail her virginity upon the mountains of Gilead.
Emotional giving is costly. It is the kind of giving that demonic pagan worship demands. Walking over live coals. Lying on a bed of nails. Human sacrifice. Temple prostitution. Tithing casts away the demonic from worship. All the nations who practiced these excessive emotional and self-destructive forms of worship eventually vanished. Emotional giving is the kind of giving that cults exploit.
If we don’t want to give our tithes to God then watch out for other gods. People who will not give a tithe to the Lord yet will blow that away in one expensive dinner. Christians who will not give tithe but will keep on buying the latest gadgets. Christians who will not give tithes but are forever decorating and redecorating their homes to keep up with the neighbor. Christians who will not give their tithes but have a secret love affair. These are habits that lead to impoverishment.
As I said it was giving too much credit to the law to say that the practice of tithing came out of the law. The law did not invent tithing. It was already there. Pagans practiced it long before the law was given. What the law did was to regulate the method of tithing, especially where and how the tithe was to be deposited. Provision was made so that there were storehouses manned by priests and Levites throughout the land, a portion of which was sent up to the temple In Jerusalem. Bring all the tithes to the storehouse. That is all the law did. Bring the tithe to the church and offer it to the Lord. That is what the law accomplished.
Conclusion
Let me say it again. Tithing puts mathematical preciseness in the way we manage our resources. You will find orderliness in your life. You will learn to manage your resources. You will avoid the excesses and habits that drain your resources. These are prerequisites to progress whether you are a laborer or a professional or an entrepreneur.
The starting point is to acknowledge God as the source of supply and give him at least what other worshipers have done since the dawn of time. If you haven’t practiced it begin now. If irregular do it regularly. If you give only a fraction try to give the full tithe.
When you tithe you will be surprised what other levels of your life will be affected for the better.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Changing the Conversation
Changing the Conversation
Philip found Nathanael and said to him, ‘We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth.’ John 1:45
The story is so simple that we miss the significance. Philip had found Jesus. We are not sure how he found Nathanael. Did he intentionally look for him? Or did he meet him by chance. Regardless we know what he did. He told his friend, “We have found the one whom Moses talked about.”
Like Simon Peter and Andrew, Philip had arrived at the same conclusion about Jesus. “We have found the Messiah.”
I listen to the conversation
of the men while we were waiting for dinner. They were all talking about food. Do you know that the best chicharon is no longer in Carcar but in Liloan? Do you know that the best siomay can be found in Tisa? Do you know that the best liempo can be found in Tres Borces Street Mabolo and it is called Liempo sa Balamban or Sugba Sugbo? I cannot add much to the conversation for I am hardly a restaurant hopper. I can say though that when Jerry took me from the airport I told him that I know a place where we can have good fish Tinola.
We enjoy telling our friends about good food.
I also listened to the conversation of the ladies. They were also talking about food. But with a slight twist. They were counting their calories. They were counting cholesterol levels. They were keen about too much oil, too little fiber. They know all about anti-oxidants and omega 3 fatty acids. Eventually the conversation turned to doctors and homeopathic medicine. Very soon they were recommending gynecologists and pediatricians.
I also listen to conversation Among Christians. Yes we talk about religion. We talk about churches, pastors, praise and worship and a lot of things in between.
But there is something in this passage that I don’t find very often in our conversation, most especially in our conversation with people of other faiths. When Philip told Nathanael, “We have found him” we cannot miss the excitement and the thrill of someone who has stumbled upon hidden treasure. In short the main topic of their conversation was Jesus. We found him.
This worries me.
Call it shyness, call it uneasiness, call it timidity. We do not share the kind of boldness and openness which these disciples had when they talked about Jesus. And I often wonder about that because I not only find it in other Christians but I even find it in myself. It is difficult for me to share my faith with others.
This worries me. Why because unless we can talk about Jesus as freely, as unashamedly, as excitedly as those first disciples of Jesus did, I am afraid that Jesus has little space in the church we are trying very hard to establish. In fact it shows even in the way describe our own congregations. We talk more about this or that pastor’s church than Jesus’ church.
Is it because to us today Jesus is only a memory?
He is an object of our study rather than the subject of our conversation. We can talk about Jesus’ teaching; talk about what he did; talk about his religion. We can analyze how Jesus was perceived by his disciples, by his enemies, by the jews and by the Romans. But we cannot talk in the same way and say with a hush, “I have found him!”
For that reason we substitute our own experience, our learning, our fellowship, our pastors, our cell groups, our mission programs, our worship experience. We can freely discuss what is wrong with our pastor, or what is missing in the program of the church. We have plenty of suggestions about how to make our worship more meaningful, our fellowship more loving, our mission program more effective. We can talk about how little or how much money we have in the church and how to raise more funds.
We can talk about anything and everything under the sun that affects our lives. We have a million things to say because this is our story. Because this is us; this is real. But Jesus? Jesus is history.
But wait a minute. What about Paul?
He wasn’t one of the 12 was he? He didn’t see the miracles of Jesus did he? He didn’t talk or sat at dinner with Jesus, wasn’t there when he instituted the Lord’s supper, wasn’t there at Calvary. Yet listen to him:
Acts 27, I heard a voice saying to me in Hebrew, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” and I said,”Who are you sir?” And the Lord replied, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.” v 14, 15
Phil 3, I consider everything as a loss because of the supreme good of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord” v 7; “I have indeed been taken possession of by Christ Jesus, v 12;
2 Cor 5, We once knew Christ in the flesh, yet now we know him so no longer. So whoever is in Christ is a new creature, the old things have passed away; behold, all things are new, v 17
2 Tim 1, I know him whom I have believed and I am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day, v 12
These are not the words of someone who considers Jesus as history. Unseen, yes, but absent? No! These are the words of someone who considers Jesus Christ present in his life who has taken hold of him, and is now trying to know him more. All he could talk about was Jesus so much so that when king Agrippa listened to him, the Jewish ruler cried out, “Paul, you are mad!” That is not something you hear people call pastors and missionaries today. Unwise, pushy, uncaring, unfair. But not mad.
Brothers and sisters, we have committed ourselves to 3 things: to gather, to build up, to send out. In short, to build Immanuel Fellowship.
But what kind of fellowship? We can build a fellowship built upon the memory of Jesus. But it would not be the fellowship of Jesus. It will be our fellowship, our church, but not the church of Jesus. It will be one pastor’s church, the product of his charisma or his preaching, or his goodness, but it will not be the church of Jesus. We can build a church built around the program of the Assemblies of God, and I love the AoG, the doctrines of the AoG, but it will not be the church of Jesus.
The only way for IF to be the church of Jesus is if He, like Paul says, possesses it, if he is the Lord of it, if he is exalted in it; but most of all—if he is the topic of conversation in it.
Jesus said, “I will build my church.” He did not mean around his memory. Then that is not the way to do it. It will be in the passive, “My church will be built.” Others will do the building after he is gone.
You like Saul may think you are doing Jesus a favor, when you may be persecuting him. You may think you are helping his church when you are hurting him. You can be well meaning but when you do things only in the memory of Jesus you may be pulling down what Jesus is building. How? By speaking, acting, deciding, as though Jesus isn’t here with us, now.
He is building his church now. In other words the question we have to answer is what is the relationship between what Jesus is gathering and building and sending has to do with what we are gathering and building and sending. The only way to do that is for us to go to Jesus and ask him. Talk it over with him. Not act as though he was not around.
Conclusion
And that my friends, is what will change our conversation. Two things are involved, then.
1. Let’s talk to Jesus.
a. First of all let’s talk to him about our own selves. Thank him. But tell him what your cares are. Tell him what worries you about yourself, your family. Before you tell Jesus about others, tell him first about yourself. Habits you don’t want to enslave you. The unkind words that you utter and you are now ashamed of. Tell him about your fear of witnessing and standing up for him.
b. Let’s tell him about our church, our Immanuel Fellowship. Chances are the things you find in yourself you can also find in others. Thank Jesus for the fellowship you enjoyed with your brothers and sister in him. This time you will not talk to Jesus to accuse them because you too need the same forgiveness. Talk to him about your leaders. The pastors and the elders. Again, chances are they too are struggling with the very same things that you struggle with.
c. Let’s talk to Jesus about our friends who do not follow him. Share with him the miseries they share with you. Ask him to strengthen you and make you a good witness for his sake and for their sake. Once you have talked to Jesus about your friends and loved ones you will want to report to him what you have done.
d. Let’s talk to Jesus about our city and about our country, Before you talk to him about the bad politicians first ask him to show you what you as one person can do to show appreciation that you live in this country. Then tell him about the bad politicians and bout our friends and loved ones, our neighbors. Let’s talk to him about our city and our country and what is destroying us. We can’t always have a people power to solve the persistent problem of corruption. Cory Aquino is no longer with us. Let’s talk to Jesus.
2. Let’s talk about Jesus
a. Before you talk to your friends and loved ones about Jesus first listen to their conversation. When you are a good listener, people will know that you care for them and will open their hearts to you. Maybe the talk is about their health. Maybe you can suggest praying with them. People loved to be prayed for. They hate a lecture. Wait for them to ask you questions about your faith. When that time comes then they are willing to listen because you also listened. You have earned their trust. Then you can speak with boldness..
b. Finally let’s talk about Jesus to each other.
i. Let us see Jesus in each other. If Jesus is working in my life, he must also be working in yours. So we have to trust the work of Jesus in building up the life of our fellow believers. Don’t usurp the role of Jesus in the life of others. That way you are setting yourself up as their Savior.
ii. Let’s testify what Jesus is doing in our lives. In every way possible let us exalt Jesus in our conversation.
It’s time for changing the conversation. Let’s talk about Jesus. Let’s build this church. After all this is his body.
Philip found Nathanael and said to him, ‘We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth.’ John 1:45
The story is so simple that we miss the significance. Philip had found Jesus. We are not sure how he found Nathanael. Did he intentionally look for him? Or did he meet him by chance. Regardless we know what he did. He told his friend, “We have found the one whom Moses talked about.”
Like Simon Peter and Andrew, Philip had arrived at the same conclusion about Jesus. “We have found the Messiah.”
I listen to the conversation
of the men while we were waiting for dinner. They were all talking about food. Do you know that the best chicharon is no longer in Carcar but in Liloan? Do you know that the best siomay can be found in Tisa? Do you know that the best liempo can be found in Tres Borces Street Mabolo and it is called Liempo sa Balamban or Sugba Sugbo? I cannot add much to the conversation for I am hardly a restaurant hopper. I can say though that when Jerry took me from the airport I told him that I know a place where we can have good fish Tinola.
We enjoy telling our friends about good food.
I also listened to the conversation of the ladies. They were also talking about food. But with a slight twist. They were counting their calories. They were counting cholesterol levels. They were keen about too much oil, too little fiber. They know all about anti-oxidants and omega 3 fatty acids. Eventually the conversation turned to doctors and homeopathic medicine. Very soon they were recommending gynecologists and pediatricians.
I also listen to conversation Among Christians. Yes we talk about religion. We talk about churches, pastors, praise and worship and a lot of things in between.
But there is something in this passage that I don’t find very often in our conversation, most especially in our conversation with people of other faiths. When Philip told Nathanael, “We have found him” we cannot miss the excitement and the thrill of someone who has stumbled upon hidden treasure. In short the main topic of their conversation was Jesus. We found him.
This worries me.
Call it shyness, call it uneasiness, call it timidity. We do not share the kind of boldness and openness which these disciples had when they talked about Jesus. And I often wonder about that because I not only find it in other Christians but I even find it in myself. It is difficult for me to share my faith with others.
This worries me. Why because unless we can talk about Jesus as freely, as unashamedly, as excitedly as those first disciples of Jesus did, I am afraid that Jesus has little space in the church we are trying very hard to establish. In fact it shows even in the way describe our own congregations. We talk more about this or that pastor’s church than Jesus’ church.
Is it because to us today Jesus is only a memory?
He is an object of our study rather than the subject of our conversation. We can talk about Jesus’ teaching; talk about what he did; talk about his religion. We can analyze how Jesus was perceived by his disciples, by his enemies, by the jews and by the Romans. But we cannot talk in the same way and say with a hush, “I have found him!”
For that reason we substitute our own experience, our learning, our fellowship, our pastors, our cell groups, our mission programs, our worship experience. We can freely discuss what is wrong with our pastor, or what is missing in the program of the church. We have plenty of suggestions about how to make our worship more meaningful, our fellowship more loving, our mission program more effective. We can talk about how little or how much money we have in the church and how to raise more funds.
We can talk about anything and everything under the sun that affects our lives. We have a million things to say because this is our story. Because this is us; this is real. But Jesus? Jesus is history.
But wait a minute. What about Paul?
He wasn’t one of the 12 was he? He didn’t see the miracles of Jesus did he? He didn’t talk or sat at dinner with Jesus, wasn’t there when he instituted the Lord’s supper, wasn’t there at Calvary. Yet listen to him:
Acts 27, I heard a voice saying to me in Hebrew, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” and I said,”Who are you sir?” And the Lord replied, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.” v 14, 15
Phil 3, I consider everything as a loss because of the supreme good of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord” v 7; “I have indeed been taken possession of by Christ Jesus, v 12;
2 Cor 5, We once knew Christ in the flesh, yet now we know him so no longer. So whoever is in Christ is a new creature, the old things have passed away; behold, all things are new, v 17
2 Tim 1, I know him whom I have believed and I am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day, v 12
These are not the words of someone who considers Jesus as history. Unseen, yes, but absent? No! These are the words of someone who considers Jesus Christ present in his life who has taken hold of him, and is now trying to know him more. All he could talk about was Jesus so much so that when king Agrippa listened to him, the Jewish ruler cried out, “Paul, you are mad!” That is not something you hear people call pastors and missionaries today. Unwise, pushy, uncaring, unfair. But not mad.
Brothers and sisters, we have committed ourselves to 3 things: to gather, to build up, to send out. In short, to build Immanuel Fellowship.
But what kind of fellowship? We can build a fellowship built upon the memory of Jesus. But it would not be the fellowship of Jesus. It will be our fellowship, our church, but not the church of Jesus. It will be one pastor’s church, the product of his charisma or his preaching, or his goodness, but it will not be the church of Jesus. We can build a church built around the program of the Assemblies of God, and I love the AoG, the doctrines of the AoG, but it will not be the church of Jesus.
The only way for IF to be the church of Jesus is if He, like Paul says, possesses it, if he is the Lord of it, if he is exalted in it; but most of all—if he is the topic of conversation in it.
Jesus said, “I will build my church.” He did not mean around his memory. Then that is not the way to do it. It will be in the passive, “My church will be built.” Others will do the building after he is gone.
You like Saul may think you are doing Jesus a favor, when you may be persecuting him. You may think you are helping his church when you are hurting him. You can be well meaning but when you do things only in the memory of Jesus you may be pulling down what Jesus is building. How? By speaking, acting, deciding, as though Jesus isn’t here with us, now.
He is building his church now. In other words the question we have to answer is what is the relationship between what Jesus is gathering and building and sending has to do with what we are gathering and building and sending. The only way to do that is for us to go to Jesus and ask him. Talk it over with him. Not act as though he was not around.
Conclusion
And that my friends, is what will change our conversation. Two things are involved, then.
1. Let’s talk to Jesus.
a. First of all let’s talk to him about our own selves. Thank him. But tell him what your cares are. Tell him what worries you about yourself, your family. Before you tell Jesus about others, tell him first about yourself. Habits you don’t want to enslave you. The unkind words that you utter and you are now ashamed of. Tell him about your fear of witnessing and standing up for him.
b. Let’s tell him about our church, our Immanuel Fellowship. Chances are the things you find in yourself you can also find in others. Thank Jesus for the fellowship you enjoyed with your brothers and sister in him. This time you will not talk to Jesus to accuse them because you too need the same forgiveness. Talk to him about your leaders. The pastors and the elders. Again, chances are they too are struggling with the very same things that you struggle with.
c. Let’s talk to Jesus about our friends who do not follow him. Share with him the miseries they share with you. Ask him to strengthen you and make you a good witness for his sake and for their sake. Once you have talked to Jesus about your friends and loved ones you will want to report to him what you have done.
d. Let’s talk to Jesus about our city and about our country, Before you talk to him about the bad politicians first ask him to show you what you as one person can do to show appreciation that you live in this country. Then tell him about the bad politicians and bout our friends and loved ones, our neighbors. Let’s talk to him about our city and our country and what is destroying us. We can’t always have a people power to solve the persistent problem of corruption. Cory Aquino is no longer with us. Let’s talk to Jesus.
2. Let’s talk about Jesus
a. Before you talk to your friends and loved ones about Jesus first listen to their conversation. When you are a good listener, people will know that you care for them and will open their hearts to you. Maybe the talk is about their health. Maybe you can suggest praying with them. People loved to be prayed for. They hate a lecture. Wait for them to ask you questions about your faith. When that time comes then they are willing to listen because you also listened. You have earned their trust. Then you can speak with boldness..
b. Finally let’s talk about Jesus to each other.
i. Let us see Jesus in each other. If Jesus is working in my life, he must also be working in yours. So we have to trust the work of Jesus in building up the life of our fellow believers. Don’t usurp the role of Jesus in the life of others. That way you are setting yourself up as their Savior.
ii. Let’s testify what Jesus is doing in our lives. In every way possible let us exalt Jesus in our conversation.
It’s time for changing the conversation. Let’s talk about Jesus. Let’s build this church. After all this is his body.
Wings for the Single Person
Third in the series on marriage and celibacy by Christianity Today. This one is a book review.
Wings for the Single Person
When the 'true love waits' pledge card has worn off.
Review by Marcy Hintz | posted 8/05/2009 09:13AM
Singled Out: Why Celibacy Must Be Reinvented in Today's Church
by Christine Colón and Bonnie Field
Brazos Press, June 2009
pp. 240, $13.99
"Ah, not to be cut off," wrote the poet Rainer Maria Rilke in words that communicate the longing to know your place in the whole—or words that scratch the fear that there really is no place for you at all.
Single adults over the age of 30 know this sentiment well, and it's the driving reason authors Christine Colón and Bonnie Field believe celibacy must be reinvented in today's church, as they put forth in Singled Out (Brazos Press). As present or erstwhile English professors, Colón and Field unravel the cultural messages that inform our common response to the word celibacy. The deliberate pace they take in exploring the topic—as researchers who care for the church—is what sets their book apart.
Colón and Field begin from their own experience. By their mid-30s, both women realized that the youthful resonance and implied promise of their "true love waits" pledge cards had worn off, and that the early church fathers' discussions of celibacy were too often laced with a fear of women and an unhealthy repression of the body.
Among the population of American singles (46 percent of adults), many are likely cohabiting, while others are openly promiscuous. But is the only evangelical response to marry the first available friend of the opposite sex? What theological assumptions would suggest that solution? And what would a positive discussion of celibacy look like?
The authors begin by taking us on a rollicking ride through the messages about marriage, sex, and celibacy—both positive and negative—that issue from secular media and the church. They then turn our attention to Scripture, theology, and church tradition, all of which suggest that Jesus' singleness is a lens through which he displayed a radical transition between the old covenant and the new. "Jesus remained celibate yet generated the offspring of his church," they write, "creating new family connections through which his new covenant could be enacted. Through Jesus' example, we find not only a model for living as single Christians but also a clear representation of why this singleness is now possible."
A narrative canvas like this gives Christian celibates a lively and important picture to paint, and reading Colón and Field's words inspires hope. They affirm that what really lies at the heart of sexuality is a desire for masculine and feminine expression, intimacy, and union. Colón and Field contend that a full embodiment of our Creator's love clearly holds a place for men and women who live chastely and are celibate. Celibates are not cut off, but are uniquely positioned to give life.
This is enough zest to give a single person energy and wings. Colón and Field's positive engagement of this topic opens the sash for further discussion—a discussion about singles' need to live within the family of the church, where they are witness to our ultimate union with Christ, and also in the community of other singles, where they can openly discuss sexuality within the framework of Scripture and God's model for what it means to be whole.
Marcy Hintz, a staff member at Church of the Resurrection in Wheaton, Illinois, works in the advancement office at Wheaton College
Wings for the Single Person
When the 'true love waits' pledge card has worn off.
Review by Marcy Hintz | posted 8/05/2009 09:13AM
Singled Out: Why Celibacy Must Be Reinvented in Today's Church
by Christine Colón and Bonnie Field
Brazos Press, June 2009
pp. 240, $13.99
"Ah, not to be cut off," wrote the poet Rainer Maria Rilke in words that communicate the longing to know your place in the whole—or words that scratch the fear that there really is no place for you at all.
Single adults over the age of 30 know this sentiment well, and it's the driving reason authors Christine Colón and Bonnie Field believe celibacy must be reinvented in today's church, as they put forth in Singled Out (Brazos Press). As present or erstwhile English professors, Colón and Field unravel the cultural messages that inform our common response to the word celibacy. The deliberate pace they take in exploring the topic—as researchers who care for the church—is what sets their book apart.
Colón and Field begin from their own experience. By their mid-30s, both women realized that the youthful resonance and implied promise of their "true love waits" pledge cards had worn off, and that the early church fathers' discussions of celibacy were too often laced with a fear of women and an unhealthy repression of the body.
Among the population of American singles (46 percent of adults), many are likely cohabiting, while others are openly promiscuous. But is the only evangelical response to marry the first available friend of the opposite sex? What theological assumptions would suggest that solution? And what would a positive discussion of celibacy look like?
The authors begin by taking us on a rollicking ride through the messages about marriage, sex, and celibacy—both positive and negative—that issue from secular media and the church. They then turn our attention to Scripture, theology, and church tradition, all of which suggest that Jesus' singleness is a lens through which he displayed a radical transition between the old covenant and the new. "Jesus remained celibate yet generated the offspring of his church," they write, "creating new family connections through which his new covenant could be enacted. Through Jesus' example, we find not only a model for living as single Christians but also a clear representation of why this singleness is now possible."
A narrative canvas like this gives Christian celibates a lively and important picture to paint, and reading Colón and Field's words inspires hope. They affirm that what really lies at the heart of sexuality is a desire for masculine and feminine expression, intimacy, and union. Colón and Field contend that a full embodiment of our Creator's love clearly holds a place for men and women who live chastely and are celibate. Celibates are not cut off, but are uniquely positioned to give life.
This is enough zest to give a single person energy and wings. Colón and Field's positive engagement of this topic opens the sash for further discussion—a discussion about singles' need to live within the family of the church, where they are witness to our ultimate union with Christ, and also in the community of other singles, where they can openly discuss sexuality within the framework of Scripture and God's model for what it means to be whole.
Marcy Hintz, a staff member at Church of the Resurrection in Wheaton, Illinois, works in the advancement office at Wheaton College
Monday, August 3, 2009
The Case for Early Marriage
Note from Pastor Nars:
The following is cover package for a series on marriage and singleness from Christianity Today. In this article the author argues for early marriage. The article that I posted previous to this (second article in the series) takes a different approach. Read both and tell me what you think.
Amid our purity pledges and attempts to make chastity hip, we forgot to teach young Christians how to tie the knot.
CT / The Case for Early Marriage
Mark Regnerus | posted 7/31/2009 09:43AM
Virginity pledges. Chastity balls. Courtship. Side hugs. Guarding your heart. Evangelical discourse on sex is more conservative than I've ever seen it. Parents and pastors and youth group leaders told us not to do it before we got married. Why? Because the Bible says so. Yet that simple message didn't go very far in shaping our sexual decision-making.
So they kicked it up a notch and staked a battle over virginity, with pledges of abstinence and accountability structures to maintain the power of the imperative to not do what many of us felt like doing. Some of us failed, but we could become "born again virgins." Virginity mattered. But sex can be had in other ways, and many of us got creative.
Then they told us that oral sex was still sex. It could spread disease, and it would make you feel bad. "Sex will be so much better if you wait until your wedding night," they urged. If we could hold out, they said, it would be worth it. The sheer glory of consummation would knock our socks off.
Such is the prevailing discourse of abstinence culture in contemporary American evangelicalism. It might sound like I devalue abstinence. I don't. The problem is that not all abstainers end up happy or go on to the great sex lives they were promised. Nor do all indulgers become miserable or marital train wrecks. More simply, however, I have found that few evangelicals accomplish what their pastors and parents wanted them to.
Indeed, over 90 percent of American adults experience sexual intercourse before marrying. The percentage of evangelicals who do so is not much lower. In a nationally representative study of young adults, just under 80 percent of unmarried, church- going, conservative Protestants who are currently dating someone are having sex of some sort. I'm certainly not suggesting that they cannot abstain. I'm suggesting that in the domain of sex, most of them don't and won't.
What to do? Intensify the abstinence message even more? No. It won't work. The message must change, because our preoccupation with sex has unwittingly turned our attention away from the damage that Americans—including evangelicals—are doing to the institution of marriage by discouraging it and delaying it.
Late Have I Loved You
If you think it's difficult to be pro-life in a pro-choice world, or to be a disciple of Jesus in a sea of skeptics, try advocating for young marriage. Almost no one empathizes, even among the faithful. The nearly universal hostile reaction to my April 23, 2009, op-ed on early marriage in The Washington Post suggests that to esteem marriage in the public sphere today is to speak a foreign language: you invoke annoyance, confusion, or both.
But after years of studying the sexual behavior and family decision-making of young Americans, I've come to the conclusion that Christians have made much ado about sex but are becoming slow and lax about marriage—that more significant, enduring witness to Christ's sacrificial love for his bride. Americans are taking flight from marriage. We are marrying later, if at all, and having fewer children.
Demographers call it the second demographic transition. In societies like ours that exhibit lengthy economic prosperity, men and women alike begin to lose motivation to marry and have children, and thus avoid one or both. Pragmatically, however, the institution of marriage remains a foundational good for individuals and communities. It is by far the optimal context for child-rearing. Married people accumulate more wealth than people who are single or cohabiting. Marriage consolidates expenses—like food, child care, electricity, and gas—and over the life course drastically reduces the odds of becoming indigent or dependent on the state.
It is, however, an institution under extreme duress in America. In the past 35 years, the number of independent female households in the U.S. has grown by 65 percent, while the share of independent male households has skyrocketed, leaping 120 percent. As a result, fewer than half of all American households today are made up of married couples.
Another indicator of our shifting sentiment about the institution is the median age at first marriage, which has risen from 21 for women and 23 for men in 1970 to where it stands today: 26 for women and 28 for men, the highest figures since the Census Bureau started collecting data about it. That's five additional, long years of peak sexual interest and fertility. (And remember, those numbers are medians: for every man marrying at 22, there's one marrying for the first time at 34.)
Evangelicals tend to marry slightly earlier than other Americans, but not by much. Many of them plan to marry in their mid-20s.Yet waiting for sex until then feels far too long to most of them. And I am suggesting that when people wait until their mid-to-late 20s to marry, it is unreasonable to expect them to refrain from sex. It's battling our Creator's reproductive designs. The data don't lie. Our sexual behavior patterns—the kind I documented in 2007 in Forbidden Fruit—give us away. Very few wait long for sex. Meanwhile, women's fertility is more or less fixed, yet Americans are increasingly ignoring it during their 20s, only to beg and pray to reclaim it in their 30s and 40s.
Where Are All the Christian Men?
Unfortunately, American evangelicals have another demographic concern: The ratio of devoutly Christian young women to men is far from even. Among evangelical churchgoers, there are about three single women for every two single men. This is the elephant in the corner of almost every congregation—a shortage of young Christian men.
Try counting singles in your congregation next Sunday. Evangelicals make much of avoiding being unequally yoked, but the fact that there are far more spiritually mature young women out there than men makes this bit of advice difficult to follow. No congregational program or men's retreat in the Rocky Mountains will solve this. If she decides to marry, one in three women has no choice but to marry down in terms of Christian maturity. Many of the hopeful ones wait, watching their late 20s and early 30s arrive with no husband. When the persistent longing turns to deep disappointment, some decide that they didn't really want to marry after all.
Given this unfavorable ratio, and the plain fact that men are, on average, ready for sex earlier in relationships than women are, many young Christian women are being left with a dilemma: either commence a sexual relationship with a decent, marriage-minded man before she would prefer to—almost certainly before marriage—or risk the real possibility that, in holding out for a godly, chaste, uncommon man, she will wait a lot longer than she would like. Plenty will wait so long as to put their fertility in jeopardy. By that time, the pool of available men is hardly the cream of the crop—and rarely chaste. I know, I know: God has someone in mind for them, and it's just a matter of time before they meet. God does work miracles. But the fact remains that there just aren't as many serious Christian young men as there are women, and the men know it.
Men get the idea that they can indeed find the ideal woman if they are patient enough. Life expectancies nearing 80 years prompt many to dabble with relationships in their 20s rather than commit to a life of "the same thing" for such a long time. Men have few compelling reasons to mature quickly. Marriage seems an unnecessary risk to many of them, even Christians. Sex seldom requires such a steep commitment.
As a result, many men postpone growing up. Even their workplace performance is suffering: earnings for 25- to 34-year-old men have fallen by 20 percent since 1971, even after accounting for inflation. No wonder young women marry men who are on average at least two years older than they. Unfortunately, a key developmental institution for men—marriage—is the very thing being postponed, thus perpetuating their adolescence.
Changing Ideals
Still, the data from nearly every survey suggest that young Americans want to get married. Eventually. That makes sense. Our Creator clearly intended for male and female to be knit together in covenantal relationship. An increasing number of men and women, however, aren't marrying. They want to. But it's not happening. And yet in surveying this scene, many Christians continue to perceive a sexual crisis, not a marital one. We buy, read, and pass along books about battling our sexual urges, when in fact we are battling them far longer than we were meant to. How did we misdiagnose this?
The answer is pretty straightforward: While our sexual ideals have remained biblical and thus rooted in marriage, our ideas about marriage have changed significantly. For all the heated talk and contested referendums about defending marriage against attempts to legally redefine it, the church has already ceded plenty of intellectual ground in its marriage-mindedness. Christian practical ethics about marriage—not the ones expounded on in books, but the ones we actually exhibit—have become a nebulous hodgepodge of pragmatic norms and romantic imperatives, few of which resemble anything biblical.
Unfortunately, many Christians cannot tell the difference. Much about evangelical marital ethics is at bottom therapeutic: since we are pro-family, we are sure that a happy marriage is a central source of human contentment, and that romantic love is the key gauge of its health. While our marriage covenants are strengthened by romance, the latter has no particular loyalty to the former.
Our personal feelings may lead us out of a marriage as quickly as they lead us into one. As a result, many of us think about marriage much like those outside the church—as a capstone that completes the life of the autonomous self. We claim to be better promise keepers, but our vision of what marriage means is not all that unique. When did this all change?
The shift has gone largely unnoticed over the past half-century. As we finally climb toward multigenerational economic success, we advise our children to finish their education, to launch their careers, and to become financially independent, since dependence is weakness. "Don't rush into a relationship," we caution them. "Hold out for a spouse who displays real godliness." "First loves aren't likely the best fit." "You have plenty of time!" we now remind them. "Don't bank on a mate." Even those who successfully married young now find themselves dispensing such parental wisdom with little forethought.
As a result, many young adults sense that putting oneself in the trust of another person so soon may be foolish and risky. Many choose to wait out the risk—sometimes for years—to see how a relationship will fare before committing. (We seem to have lost our ability to shame men for such incessant delays.) Consequently, the focus of 20-somethings has become less about building mature relationships and fulfilling responsibilities, and more about enjoying oneself, traveling, and trying on identities and relationships. After all the fun, it will be time to settle down and get serious.
Most young Americans no longer think of marriage as a formative institution, but rather as the institution they enter once they think they are fully formed. Increasing numbers of young evangelicals think likewise, and, by integrating these ideas with the timeless imperative to abstain from sex before marriage, we've created a new optimal life formula for our children:
Marriage is glorious, and a big deal. But it must wait. And with it, sex. Which is seldom as patient.
Objections to Young Marriage
Now let's have a dose of that pragmatic reasoning, because there are some good reasons to avoid marrying young. Indeed, studies continue to show that early marriage is the number one predictor of divorce. So why on earth would I want to consider such a disastrous idea that flies in the face of the evidence? Two reasons:
First, what is deemed "early marriage" by researchers is commonly misunderstood. The most competent evaluations of early marriage and divorce note that the association between early age-at-marriage and divorce occurs largely among those who marry as teenagers (before age 20). Although probably all of us know successful examples of such marriages, I still don't think teen marriage is wise. But the data suggest that marriages that commence in the early 20s are not as risky—especially for women—as conventional wisdom claims.
Second, the age at which a person marries never causes divorce. Rather, a young age-at-marriage is an indicator of an underlying proclivity for marital problems, the kind most Christian couples learn to avoid or solve without parting. Family scholars agree that there are several roots to the link between age-at-marriage and divorce. I consider five of them here, together with some practical ways that parents, friends, and the church can work to turn such weaknesses into strengths.
(1) Economic insecurity: Marrying young can spell poverty, at least temporarily. Yet the mentality that we need to shield young adults from the usual struggles of life by encouraging them to delay marriage until they are financially secure usually rests on an unrealistic standard of living. Good marriages grow through struggles, including economic ones. My wife and I are still fiscal conservatives because of our early days of austerity.
Nevertheless, the economic domain remains an area in which many parents are often able, but frequently unwilling, to assist their children. Many well-meaning parents use their resources as a threat, implying that if their children marry before the age at which their parents socially approve, they are on their own. No more car insurance. No help with tuition. No more rent.
This doesn't sound very compassionate toward marriage—or toward family members. This is, however, a two-way street: many young adults consider it immature or humiliating to rely on others for financial or even social support. They would rather deal with sexual guilt—if they sense any at all—than consider marrying before they think they are ready. This cultural predilection toward punishing rather than blessing marriage must go, and congregations and churchgoers can help by dropping their own punitive positions toward family members, as well as by identifying deserving young couples who could use a little extra help once in a while. Christians are great about supporting their missionaries, but in this matter, we can be missionaries to the marriages in our midst.
(2) Immaturity: Even if economic security is not a concern, immaturity and naïveté often characterize young marriages. While unlearning self-centeredness and acquiring a sacrificial side aren't easy at any age, naïveté may actually benefit youth, since preferences and habits ingrained over years of single life often are not set aside easily. Let's face it: Young adults are inexperienced, but they are not intrinsically incompetent at marriage. So they need, of course, the frank guidance of parents, mentors, and Christian couples.
Women, however, do tend to exhibit greater maturity earlier than men. As a result, it shouldn't surprise us when a young woman falls in love with someone three, five, even ten years her senior. Indeed, two of the finest marriages I've recently witnessed exhibit nearly a dozen years' difference between husband and wife. While there are unwise ages to marry, there is no right age for which we must make our children wait. Indeed, age integration is one of the unique hallmarks of the institutional church, tacitly contesting the strict age-separation patterns that have long characterized American schools and universities.
One common way that immaturity reveals itself is when parents or children make marriage into another form of social competition or sibling rivalry. Modern adolescence and young adulthood read like one contest after another: the race to win in sports, to get good grades, to attend a prestigious college, to attract the best-looking person, to secure that coveted job. Where does it end? Not with marriage. Even college students who wish to marry are painfully (or proudly) aware of the "ring by spring" competition. Marriage becomes equated with beautiful, successful people. Weddings become expensive displays of personal and family status. Clergy often get caught in the middle of this, and feel powerless to contest it. My father, a minister, told me that he'd rather "bury people than marry people."
Such is the pressure cooker of modern weddings. None of this is good. Marriage is too important and too serious to be treated as yet another game to play, with winners and losers. It's a covenant of mutual submission and sacrificial love, not a contest of prestige, social norms, and saving face. A trend toward more modest weddings would be a great start.
(3) A Poor Match: Marrying early can mean a short search process, which elevates the odds of a poorer match. In the age of online dating personality algorithms and matches (see "Restless, Reformed, and Single," page 28), Americans have become well acquainted with the cultural notion that getting the right fit in a marital partner is extremely important. Chemistry is the new watchword as we meld marriage with science. Should opposites attract? Or should we look for common interests?
There is no right answer to such questions, because successful marriages are less about the right personalities than about the right practices, like persistent communication and conflict resolution, along with the ability to handle the cyclical nature of so much about marriage, and a bedrock commitment to its sacred unity. Indeed, marriage research confirms that couples who view their marriages as sacred covenants are far better off than those who don't.
Toward this end, pastors, premarital counselors, and Christian friends must be free to speak frankly into the lives of those seeking their counsel about marriage. While it may be nice to find an optimal match in marriage, it cannot hold a candle to sharing a mental and spiritual commitment to the enduring covenant between God, man, and woman. It just can't. People change. Chemistry wanes. Covenants don't.
(4) Marrying for Sex: One byproduct of the abstinence culture is that some marry early simply for the promise of long-awaited, guilt-free sex. After all, Paul told us that it's better to marry than to burn with passion (1 Cor. 7). And modern America certainly bears a striking resemblance to Corinth, whose church was confused about what to do with marriage. Its people were delaying marriage, just like we are. Yet in our culture of shallow marriages and easy divorce, marrying simply for the lure of sex is not what Paul had in mind. He reminded the Corinthians—and us—of the only two callings for believers in this matter: a season or lifetime of singleness, or marriage. In other words, our freedom to serve as singles or our submission as married people is never intended to be about us. It's about God. While I certainly understand the biological urge to mate, we need to remind young adults that values like generosity, courage, dependability, compassion, and godliness live on far longer than do high testosterone and estrogen levels. Simply put, family and friends ought to do their best to help young couples discern whether there is more to their love than sexual desire.
(5) Unrealistic expectations: Today's young adults show tremendous optimism about their own personal futures, leading many to sense they are entitled to a great marriage that will commence according to plan, on their timetable. Unfortunately, marital life often ends up looking different from what they had anticipated. Marriage is a remarkable institution in many ways, but it cannot bear all of the unrealistic expectations that we moderns have heaped upon it.
So enough of the honeymoon banter: insiders know that a good marriage is hard work, and that its challenges often begin immediately. The abstinence industry perpetuates a blissful myth; too much is made of the explosively rewarding marital sex life awaiting abstainers. The fact is that God makes no promises of great sex to those who wait. Some experience difficult marriages. Spouses wander. Others cannot conceive children.
In reality, spouses learn marriage, just like they learn communication, child-rearing, or making love. Unfortunately, education about marriage is now sadly perceived as self-obvious, juvenile, or feminine, the domain of disparaged home economics courses. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In sum, Christians need to get real about marriage: it's a covenant helpmate thing that suffers from too much idealism and too little realism.Weddings may be beautiful, but marriages become beautiful. Personal storytelling and testimonies can work wonders here, since so much about life is learned behavior. Young adults want to know that it's possible for two fellow believers to stay happy together for a lifetime, and they need to hear how the generations preceding them did it.
Enduring Gospel Witness
Abstinence is not to blame for our marital crisis. But promoting it has come at a cost in a permissive world in which we are increasingly postponing marriage. While I am no fan of the demographic realities I outlined earlier, one thing I will remember is that while sex matters, marriage matters more. The importance of Christian marriage as a symbol of God's covenantal faithfulness to his people—and a witness to the future union of Christ and his bride—will only grow in significance as the wider Western culture diminishes both the meaning and actual practice of marriage. Marriage itself will become a witness to the gospel.
Romantic relationship formation is what I study. I've spoken with hundreds of young adults about not only what they think or hope for, but also what they actually do. Time and again, I've listened to Christian undergraduates recount to me how their relationships turned sexual. One thing I never ask them is why. I know why. Because sex feels great, it feels connectional, it feels deeply human. I never blame them for wanting that. Sex is intended to deepen personal relationships, and desire for it is intended to promote marriage. Such are the impulses of many young Christians in love. In an environment where parents and peers are encouraging them to delay thoughts of marriage, I'm not surprised that their sexuality remains difficult to suppress and the source of considerable angst. We would do well to recognize some of these relationships for what they are: marriages in the making. If a young couple displays maturity, faith, fidelity, a commitment to understanding marriage as a covenant, and a sense of realism about marriage, then it's our duty—indeed, our pleasure—to help them expedite the part of marriage that involves public recognition and celebration of what God is already knitting together. We ought to "rejoice and delight" in them, and praise their love (Song of Sol. 1:4).
Mark Regnerus, Ph.D., is the author of Forbidden Fruit: Sex and Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers (Oxford, 2007). He's an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas, Austin, where he lives with his wife, Deeann, and their three children. Download a companion Bible study for this article at ChristianityTodayStore.com.
The following is cover package for a series on marriage and singleness from Christianity Today. In this article the author argues for early marriage. The article that I posted previous to this (second article in the series) takes a different approach. Read both and tell me what you think.
Amid our purity pledges and attempts to make chastity hip, we forgot to teach young Christians how to tie the knot.
CT / The Case for Early Marriage
Mark Regnerus | posted 7/31/2009 09:43AM
Virginity pledges. Chastity balls. Courtship. Side hugs. Guarding your heart. Evangelical discourse on sex is more conservative than I've ever seen it. Parents and pastors and youth group leaders told us not to do it before we got married. Why? Because the Bible says so. Yet that simple message didn't go very far in shaping our sexual decision-making.
So they kicked it up a notch and staked a battle over virginity, with pledges of abstinence and accountability structures to maintain the power of the imperative to not do what many of us felt like doing. Some of us failed, but we could become "born again virgins." Virginity mattered. But sex can be had in other ways, and many of us got creative.
Then they told us that oral sex was still sex. It could spread disease, and it would make you feel bad. "Sex will be so much better if you wait until your wedding night," they urged. If we could hold out, they said, it would be worth it. The sheer glory of consummation would knock our socks off.
Such is the prevailing discourse of abstinence culture in contemporary American evangelicalism. It might sound like I devalue abstinence. I don't. The problem is that not all abstainers end up happy or go on to the great sex lives they were promised. Nor do all indulgers become miserable or marital train wrecks. More simply, however, I have found that few evangelicals accomplish what their pastors and parents wanted them to.
Indeed, over 90 percent of American adults experience sexual intercourse before marrying. The percentage of evangelicals who do so is not much lower. In a nationally representative study of young adults, just under 80 percent of unmarried, church- going, conservative Protestants who are currently dating someone are having sex of some sort. I'm certainly not suggesting that they cannot abstain. I'm suggesting that in the domain of sex, most of them don't and won't.
What to do? Intensify the abstinence message even more? No. It won't work. The message must change, because our preoccupation with sex has unwittingly turned our attention away from the damage that Americans—including evangelicals—are doing to the institution of marriage by discouraging it and delaying it.
Late Have I Loved You
If you think it's difficult to be pro-life in a pro-choice world, or to be a disciple of Jesus in a sea of skeptics, try advocating for young marriage. Almost no one empathizes, even among the faithful. The nearly universal hostile reaction to my April 23, 2009, op-ed on early marriage in The Washington Post suggests that to esteem marriage in the public sphere today is to speak a foreign language: you invoke annoyance, confusion, or both.
But after years of studying the sexual behavior and family decision-making of young Americans, I've come to the conclusion that Christians have made much ado about sex but are becoming slow and lax about marriage—that more significant, enduring witness to Christ's sacrificial love for his bride. Americans are taking flight from marriage. We are marrying later, if at all, and having fewer children.
Demographers call it the second demographic transition. In societies like ours that exhibit lengthy economic prosperity, men and women alike begin to lose motivation to marry and have children, and thus avoid one or both. Pragmatically, however, the institution of marriage remains a foundational good for individuals and communities. It is by far the optimal context for child-rearing. Married people accumulate more wealth than people who are single or cohabiting. Marriage consolidates expenses—like food, child care, electricity, and gas—and over the life course drastically reduces the odds of becoming indigent or dependent on the state.
It is, however, an institution under extreme duress in America. In the past 35 years, the number of independent female households in the U.S. has grown by 65 percent, while the share of independent male households has skyrocketed, leaping 120 percent. As a result, fewer than half of all American households today are made up of married couples.
Another indicator of our shifting sentiment about the institution is the median age at first marriage, which has risen from 21 for women and 23 for men in 1970 to where it stands today: 26 for women and 28 for men, the highest figures since the Census Bureau started collecting data about it. That's five additional, long years of peak sexual interest and fertility. (And remember, those numbers are medians: for every man marrying at 22, there's one marrying for the first time at 34.)
Evangelicals tend to marry slightly earlier than other Americans, but not by much. Many of them plan to marry in their mid-20s.Yet waiting for sex until then feels far too long to most of them. And I am suggesting that when people wait until their mid-to-late 20s to marry, it is unreasonable to expect them to refrain from sex. It's battling our Creator's reproductive designs. The data don't lie. Our sexual behavior patterns—the kind I documented in 2007 in Forbidden Fruit—give us away. Very few wait long for sex. Meanwhile, women's fertility is more or less fixed, yet Americans are increasingly ignoring it during their 20s, only to beg and pray to reclaim it in their 30s and 40s.
Where Are All the Christian Men?
Unfortunately, American evangelicals have another demographic concern: The ratio of devoutly Christian young women to men is far from even. Among evangelical churchgoers, there are about three single women for every two single men. This is the elephant in the corner of almost every congregation—a shortage of young Christian men.
Try counting singles in your congregation next Sunday. Evangelicals make much of avoiding being unequally yoked, but the fact that there are far more spiritually mature young women out there than men makes this bit of advice difficult to follow. No congregational program or men's retreat in the Rocky Mountains will solve this. If she decides to marry, one in three women has no choice but to marry down in terms of Christian maturity. Many of the hopeful ones wait, watching their late 20s and early 30s arrive with no husband. When the persistent longing turns to deep disappointment, some decide that they didn't really want to marry after all.
Given this unfavorable ratio, and the plain fact that men are, on average, ready for sex earlier in relationships than women are, many young Christian women are being left with a dilemma: either commence a sexual relationship with a decent, marriage-minded man before she would prefer to—almost certainly before marriage—or risk the real possibility that, in holding out for a godly, chaste, uncommon man, she will wait a lot longer than she would like. Plenty will wait so long as to put their fertility in jeopardy. By that time, the pool of available men is hardly the cream of the crop—and rarely chaste. I know, I know: God has someone in mind for them, and it's just a matter of time before they meet. God does work miracles. But the fact remains that there just aren't as many serious Christian young men as there are women, and the men know it.
Men get the idea that they can indeed find the ideal woman if they are patient enough. Life expectancies nearing 80 years prompt many to dabble with relationships in their 20s rather than commit to a life of "the same thing" for such a long time. Men have few compelling reasons to mature quickly. Marriage seems an unnecessary risk to many of them, even Christians. Sex seldom requires such a steep commitment.
As a result, many men postpone growing up. Even their workplace performance is suffering: earnings for 25- to 34-year-old men have fallen by 20 percent since 1971, even after accounting for inflation. No wonder young women marry men who are on average at least two years older than they. Unfortunately, a key developmental institution for men—marriage—is the very thing being postponed, thus perpetuating their adolescence.
Changing Ideals
Still, the data from nearly every survey suggest that young Americans want to get married. Eventually. That makes sense. Our Creator clearly intended for male and female to be knit together in covenantal relationship. An increasing number of men and women, however, aren't marrying. They want to. But it's not happening. And yet in surveying this scene, many Christians continue to perceive a sexual crisis, not a marital one. We buy, read, and pass along books about battling our sexual urges, when in fact we are battling them far longer than we were meant to. How did we misdiagnose this?
The answer is pretty straightforward: While our sexual ideals have remained biblical and thus rooted in marriage, our ideas about marriage have changed significantly. For all the heated talk and contested referendums about defending marriage against attempts to legally redefine it, the church has already ceded plenty of intellectual ground in its marriage-mindedness. Christian practical ethics about marriage—not the ones expounded on in books, but the ones we actually exhibit—have become a nebulous hodgepodge of pragmatic norms and romantic imperatives, few of which resemble anything biblical.
Unfortunately, many Christians cannot tell the difference. Much about evangelical marital ethics is at bottom therapeutic: since we are pro-family, we are sure that a happy marriage is a central source of human contentment, and that romantic love is the key gauge of its health. While our marriage covenants are strengthened by romance, the latter has no particular loyalty to the former.
Our personal feelings may lead us out of a marriage as quickly as they lead us into one. As a result, many of us think about marriage much like those outside the church—as a capstone that completes the life of the autonomous self. We claim to be better promise keepers, but our vision of what marriage means is not all that unique. When did this all change?
The shift has gone largely unnoticed over the past half-century. As we finally climb toward multigenerational economic success, we advise our children to finish their education, to launch their careers, and to become financially independent, since dependence is weakness. "Don't rush into a relationship," we caution them. "Hold out for a spouse who displays real godliness." "First loves aren't likely the best fit." "You have plenty of time!" we now remind them. "Don't bank on a mate." Even those who successfully married young now find themselves dispensing such parental wisdom with little forethought.
As a result, many young adults sense that putting oneself in the trust of another person so soon may be foolish and risky. Many choose to wait out the risk—sometimes for years—to see how a relationship will fare before committing. (We seem to have lost our ability to shame men for such incessant delays.) Consequently, the focus of 20-somethings has become less about building mature relationships and fulfilling responsibilities, and more about enjoying oneself, traveling, and trying on identities and relationships. After all the fun, it will be time to settle down and get serious.
Most young Americans no longer think of marriage as a formative institution, but rather as the institution they enter once they think they are fully formed. Increasing numbers of young evangelicals think likewise, and, by integrating these ideas with the timeless imperative to abstain from sex before marriage, we've created a new optimal life formula for our children:
Marriage is glorious, and a big deal. But it must wait. And with it, sex. Which is seldom as patient.
Objections to Young Marriage
Now let's have a dose of that pragmatic reasoning, because there are some good reasons to avoid marrying young. Indeed, studies continue to show that early marriage is the number one predictor of divorce. So why on earth would I want to consider such a disastrous idea that flies in the face of the evidence? Two reasons:
First, what is deemed "early marriage" by researchers is commonly misunderstood. The most competent evaluations of early marriage and divorce note that the association between early age-at-marriage and divorce occurs largely among those who marry as teenagers (before age 20). Although probably all of us know successful examples of such marriages, I still don't think teen marriage is wise. But the data suggest that marriages that commence in the early 20s are not as risky—especially for women—as conventional wisdom claims.
Second, the age at which a person marries never causes divorce. Rather, a young age-at-marriage is an indicator of an underlying proclivity for marital problems, the kind most Christian couples learn to avoid or solve without parting. Family scholars agree that there are several roots to the link between age-at-marriage and divorce. I consider five of them here, together with some practical ways that parents, friends, and the church can work to turn such weaknesses into strengths.
(1) Economic insecurity: Marrying young can spell poverty, at least temporarily. Yet the mentality that we need to shield young adults from the usual struggles of life by encouraging them to delay marriage until they are financially secure usually rests on an unrealistic standard of living. Good marriages grow through struggles, including economic ones. My wife and I are still fiscal conservatives because of our early days of austerity.
Nevertheless, the economic domain remains an area in which many parents are often able, but frequently unwilling, to assist their children. Many well-meaning parents use their resources as a threat, implying that if their children marry before the age at which their parents socially approve, they are on their own. No more car insurance. No help with tuition. No more rent.
This doesn't sound very compassionate toward marriage—or toward family members. This is, however, a two-way street: many young adults consider it immature or humiliating to rely on others for financial or even social support. They would rather deal with sexual guilt—if they sense any at all—than consider marrying before they think they are ready. This cultural predilection toward punishing rather than blessing marriage must go, and congregations and churchgoers can help by dropping their own punitive positions toward family members, as well as by identifying deserving young couples who could use a little extra help once in a while. Christians are great about supporting their missionaries, but in this matter, we can be missionaries to the marriages in our midst.
(2) Immaturity: Even if economic security is not a concern, immaturity and naïveté often characterize young marriages. While unlearning self-centeredness and acquiring a sacrificial side aren't easy at any age, naïveté may actually benefit youth, since preferences and habits ingrained over years of single life often are not set aside easily. Let's face it: Young adults are inexperienced, but they are not intrinsically incompetent at marriage. So they need, of course, the frank guidance of parents, mentors, and Christian couples.
Women, however, do tend to exhibit greater maturity earlier than men. As a result, it shouldn't surprise us when a young woman falls in love with someone three, five, even ten years her senior. Indeed, two of the finest marriages I've recently witnessed exhibit nearly a dozen years' difference between husband and wife. While there are unwise ages to marry, there is no right age for which we must make our children wait. Indeed, age integration is one of the unique hallmarks of the institutional church, tacitly contesting the strict age-separation patterns that have long characterized American schools and universities.
One common way that immaturity reveals itself is when parents or children make marriage into another form of social competition or sibling rivalry. Modern adolescence and young adulthood read like one contest after another: the race to win in sports, to get good grades, to attend a prestigious college, to attract the best-looking person, to secure that coveted job. Where does it end? Not with marriage. Even college students who wish to marry are painfully (or proudly) aware of the "ring by spring" competition. Marriage becomes equated with beautiful, successful people. Weddings become expensive displays of personal and family status. Clergy often get caught in the middle of this, and feel powerless to contest it. My father, a minister, told me that he'd rather "bury people than marry people."
Such is the pressure cooker of modern weddings. None of this is good. Marriage is too important and too serious to be treated as yet another game to play, with winners and losers. It's a covenant of mutual submission and sacrificial love, not a contest of prestige, social norms, and saving face. A trend toward more modest weddings would be a great start.
(3) A Poor Match: Marrying early can mean a short search process, which elevates the odds of a poorer match. In the age of online dating personality algorithms and matches (see "Restless, Reformed, and Single," page 28), Americans have become well acquainted with the cultural notion that getting the right fit in a marital partner is extremely important. Chemistry is the new watchword as we meld marriage with science. Should opposites attract? Or should we look for common interests?
There is no right answer to such questions, because successful marriages are less about the right personalities than about the right practices, like persistent communication and conflict resolution, along with the ability to handle the cyclical nature of so much about marriage, and a bedrock commitment to its sacred unity. Indeed, marriage research confirms that couples who view their marriages as sacred covenants are far better off than those who don't.
Toward this end, pastors, premarital counselors, and Christian friends must be free to speak frankly into the lives of those seeking their counsel about marriage. While it may be nice to find an optimal match in marriage, it cannot hold a candle to sharing a mental and spiritual commitment to the enduring covenant between God, man, and woman. It just can't. People change. Chemistry wanes. Covenants don't.
(4) Marrying for Sex: One byproduct of the abstinence culture is that some marry early simply for the promise of long-awaited, guilt-free sex. After all, Paul told us that it's better to marry than to burn with passion (1 Cor. 7). And modern America certainly bears a striking resemblance to Corinth, whose church was confused about what to do with marriage. Its people were delaying marriage, just like we are. Yet in our culture of shallow marriages and easy divorce, marrying simply for the lure of sex is not what Paul had in mind. He reminded the Corinthians—and us—of the only two callings for believers in this matter: a season or lifetime of singleness, or marriage. In other words, our freedom to serve as singles or our submission as married people is never intended to be about us. It's about God. While I certainly understand the biological urge to mate, we need to remind young adults that values like generosity, courage, dependability, compassion, and godliness live on far longer than do high testosterone and estrogen levels. Simply put, family and friends ought to do their best to help young couples discern whether there is more to their love than sexual desire.
(5) Unrealistic expectations: Today's young adults show tremendous optimism about their own personal futures, leading many to sense they are entitled to a great marriage that will commence according to plan, on their timetable. Unfortunately, marital life often ends up looking different from what they had anticipated. Marriage is a remarkable institution in many ways, but it cannot bear all of the unrealistic expectations that we moderns have heaped upon it.
So enough of the honeymoon banter: insiders know that a good marriage is hard work, and that its challenges often begin immediately. The abstinence industry perpetuates a blissful myth; too much is made of the explosively rewarding marital sex life awaiting abstainers. The fact is that God makes no promises of great sex to those who wait. Some experience difficult marriages. Spouses wander. Others cannot conceive children.
In reality, spouses learn marriage, just like they learn communication, child-rearing, or making love. Unfortunately, education about marriage is now sadly perceived as self-obvious, juvenile, or feminine, the domain of disparaged home economics courses. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In sum, Christians need to get real about marriage: it's a covenant helpmate thing that suffers from too much idealism and too little realism.Weddings may be beautiful, but marriages become beautiful. Personal storytelling and testimonies can work wonders here, since so much about life is learned behavior. Young adults want to know that it's possible for two fellow believers to stay happy together for a lifetime, and they need to hear how the generations preceding them did it.
Enduring Gospel Witness
Abstinence is not to blame for our marital crisis. But promoting it has come at a cost in a permissive world in which we are increasingly postponing marriage. While I am no fan of the demographic realities I outlined earlier, one thing I will remember is that while sex matters, marriage matters more. The importance of Christian marriage as a symbol of God's covenantal faithfulness to his people—and a witness to the future union of Christ and his bride—will only grow in significance as the wider Western culture diminishes both the meaning and actual practice of marriage. Marriage itself will become a witness to the gospel.
Romantic relationship formation is what I study. I've spoken with hundreds of young adults about not only what they think or hope for, but also what they actually do. Time and again, I've listened to Christian undergraduates recount to me how their relationships turned sexual. One thing I never ask them is why. I know why. Because sex feels great, it feels connectional, it feels deeply human. I never blame them for wanting that. Sex is intended to deepen personal relationships, and desire for it is intended to promote marriage. Such are the impulses of many young Christians in love. In an environment where parents and peers are encouraging them to delay thoughts of marriage, I'm not surprised that their sexuality remains difficult to suppress and the source of considerable angst. We would do well to recognize some of these relationships for what they are: marriages in the making. If a young couple displays maturity, faith, fidelity, a commitment to understanding marriage as a covenant, and a sense of realism about marriage, then it's our duty—indeed, our pleasure—to help them expedite the part of marriage that involves public recognition and celebration of what God is already knitting together. We ought to "rejoice and delight" in them, and praise their love (Song of Sol. 1:4).
Mark Regnerus, Ph.D., is the author of Forbidden Fruit: Sex and Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers (Oxford, 2007). He's an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas, Austin, where he lives with his wife, Deeann, and their three children. Download a companion Bible study for this article at ChristianityTodayStore.com.
The Waiting Game
To our Immanuel Fellowship Singles:
Here's a provocative article from Christianity Today on singleness. The previous article proposes early marriage. I'll post it here too.
CT / The Waiting Game
Single adults can live fulfilling lives that reveal God's goodness.
Christine A. Colón | posted 8/03/2009 10:06AM
COVER PACKAGE: Weighing Young Weddings
The following article is part of Christianity Today's cover package on "The Case for Early Marriage."
The Wheaton College newspaper recently published an article detailing frustrations that married students experience on campus because of their choice to marry young. The article surprised me. From my perspective, Wheaton College, along with much of evangelical culture, seems obsessed with marriage. The number of students desperate for a "ring by spring" and the many marriage seminars at local congregations suggest that marriage remains a high priority.
Despite my different perspective, I feel for these married students. Certainly in our society, where strong marriages are so difficult to maintain, the Christian community should rally around these couples. And as I read through Regnerus's argument, I found myself agreeing with several of his points. Yes, abstinence rhetoric is problematic, and many singles have difficulty maintaining their purity. And yes, characterizing marriage almost entirely by romance and great sex is dangerous.
But is encouraging early marriage the answer? As Regnerus admits, early marriage is a risky proposition. While some young Christians might be ready, I worry that emphasizing early marriage will hasten the marriages of many who should wait.
I also worry that this solution addresses only one aspect of the problem. What about those who will not marry early—or at all? Many Christian women in particular must face this reality. What do you do if you are the one in three who doesn't find a spiritually mature man to marry? God can perform miracles, but despite the assurances of many Christian dating books, he doesn't necessarily provide everyone with a spouse.
What we need, then, is to change not simply how we talk about marriage but also how we talk about singleness. Rather than relying on the old standby of "wait until marriage," we must consider why God might ask some of us to remain single. What does it mean to live a celibate life even if you haven't taken a vow of celibacy? Can you live as a full person if you aren't sexually active? Can celibacy be a witness to the gospel?
In a world where a good sex life is seen as essential, I believe that celibacy can serve as a radical testimony to God's love and provision. By approaching it as a spiritual discipline that reminds us that our ultimate fulfillment lies in our union with God, we can begin to see singleness as a productive time of serving God rather than a period of simply waiting for the right partner. Is the celibate life easy? No. But by the grace of God, it is possible.
We should support young Christians who decide to marry. But we need to combine that message with another that affirms the value of celibacy and the truth that single adults can live fulfilling lives that reveal God's goodness: a message that affirms not only older singles who may never marry, but also younger singles who may need to wait before marrying.
Christine A. Colón, associate professor of English at Wheaton College, and coauthor of Singled Out: Why Celibacy Must Be Reinvented in Today's Church (Brazos, 2009)
Here's a provocative article from Christianity Today on singleness. The previous article proposes early marriage. I'll post it here too.
CT / The Waiting Game
Single adults can live fulfilling lives that reveal God's goodness.
Christine A. Colón | posted 8/03/2009 10:06AM
COVER PACKAGE: Weighing Young Weddings
The following article is part of Christianity Today's cover package on "The Case for Early Marriage."
The Wheaton College newspaper recently published an article detailing frustrations that married students experience on campus because of their choice to marry young. The article surprised me. From my perspective, Wheaton College, along with much of evangelical culture, seems obsessed with marriage. The number of students desperate for a "ring by spring" and the many marriage seminars at local congregations suggest that marriage remains a high priority.
Despite my different perspective, I feel for these married students. Certainly in our society, where strong marriages are so difficult to maintain, the Christian community should rally around these couples. And as I read through Regnerus's argument, I found myself agreeing with several of his points. Yes, abstinence rhetoric is problematic, and many singles have difficulty maintaining their purity. And yes, characterizing marriage almost entirely by romance and great sex is dangerous.
But is encouraging early marriage the answer? As Regnerus admits, early marriage is a risky proposition. While some young Christians might be ready, I worry that emphasizing early marriage will hasten the marriages of many who should wait.
I also worry that this solution addresses only one aspect of the problem. What about those who will not marry early—or at all? Many Christian women in particular must face this reality. What do you do if you are the one in three who doesn't find a spiritually mature man to marry? God can perform miracles, but despite the assurances of many Christian dating books, he doesn't necessarily provide everyone with a spouse.
What we need, then, is to change not simply how we talk about marriage but also how we talk about singleness. Rather than relying on the old standby of "wait until marriage," we must consider why God might ask some of us to remain single. What does it mean to live a celibate life even if you haven't taken a vow of celibacy? Can you live as a full person if you aren't sexually active? Can celibacy be a witness to the gospel?
In a world where a good sex life is seen as essential, I believe that celibacy can serve as a radical testimony to God's love and provision. By approaching it as a spiritual discipline that reminds us that our ultimate fulfillment lies in our union with God, we can begin to see singleness as a productive time of serving God rather than a period of simply waiting for the right partner. Is the celibate life easy? No. But by the grace of God, it is possible.
We should support young Christians who decide to marry. But we need to combine that message with another that affirms the value of celibacy and the truth that single adults can live fulfilling lives that reveal God's goodness: a message that affirms not only older singles who may never marry, but also younger singles who may need to wait before marrying.
Christine A. Colón, associate professor of English at Wheaton College, and coauthor of Singled Out: Why Celibacy Must Be Reinvented in Today's Church (Brazos, 2009)
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Immanuel Fellowship's Ministry Site
There you are. At last all of you in ministry at Immanuel Fellowship, and you are a wonderful, creative, growing group, have a blog site of your own.
Our first Ministry Convention last Saturday, the 1st of August, was attended by 57 members of various ministry groups. Many more are involved or have signed up but could not come due to conflicting work schedule. We are looking forward to similar ministry meetings. Already there is a follow up seminar on Suunday for those interested to pursue Photography as a Ministry Tool.
Diakonia is the Greek or original New Testament word of service, or ministry. Diakonia is the spirit that characterized Jesus who said, "The Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve," not to be ministered unto but to minister. A growing number of Immanuel Fellowship people are catching the spirit of servanthood.
Think of this blog site as kind of like your cafeteria and classroom combined. There will be articles to inspire you as well as information to develop your ministry skill. Furthermore this is the site where we post photo reports, announcements, and testimonies,
So welcome to Immanuel Diakonia!
Yours in service to Jesus, his church and his world,
Pastor Nars Dionson y Campo
090803
Our first Ministry Convention last Saturday, the 1st of August, was attended by 57 members of various ministry groups. Many more are involved or have signed up but could not come due to conflicting work schedule. We are looking forward to similar ministry meetings. Already there is a follow up seminar on Suunday for those interested to pursue Photography as a Ministry Tool.
Diakonia is the Greek or original New Testament word of service, or ministry. Diakonia is the spirit that characterized Jesus who said, "The Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve," not to be ministered unto but to minister. A growing number of Immanuel Fellowship people are catching the spirit of servanthood.
Think of this blog site as kind of like your cafeteria and classroom combined. There will be articles to inspire you as well as information to develop your ministry skill. Furthermore this is the site where we post photo reports, announcements, and testimonies,
So welcome to Immanuel Diakonia!
Yours in service to Jesus, his church and his world,
Pastor Nars Dionson y Campo
090803
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
