Looking over a list of Christian conferences coming up in 2023 I ran across one that states it is for: “LGBTQ+ Christians who have committed to celibacy as a personal call in their spiritual journeys.”

Here are some of the bios of the speakers:

“(Speaker A) identifies as cis/gay/queer and is the mom of a grown son from a 25-year mixed-orientation marriage.”

“(Speaker B, He/Him) is passionate about the intersection of faith, sexuality, and… facilitates conversations among Christian sexual and gender minorities.”

“(Rev. Speaker C, she/her) is…an outspoken advocate for youth ministry and social justice, (she/her) has worked as a youth leader, Children, Youth and Family Pastor, (has used) theatrical and improvisational elements in services but also to respond to God as a worship light and (has been)…a drag king, and occasional amateur DJ.”

“(Speaker D) was raised in a Christian home that was heavily involved in addiction recovery ministries. While leading in a large evangelical campus fellowship her first two years of college, (she) had a crisis of faith and ultimately joined a new group specifically created for Queer people of faith on campus. Attending (this same conference) in 2019 was a huge turning point for her, where she felt able to fully embrace her identity. She has gone through a long period of deconstructing her faith and continues to ponder the liberating potential of faith. She frames Jesus as her earliest example of what a revolutionary can look like.”

It goes on.

Where the Battle Fiercely Rages

This issue reminds me of the following quote:

“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christianity.  Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace to him, if he flinches at that one point.” — A follower of Martin Luther, 2 April 1526, quoted in Chronicles of the Schönberg-Cotta Family (New York, 1865), page 321.

The front-line of the battle in Evangelicalism today is that of sexual ethics: Marriage, divorce, remarriage, fornication, adultery, pornography, abortion, same-sex attraction, “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” “gender fluidity,” “non-binary,” “non-conforming,” transgender, and of course, the entire alphabet soup of titles and “preferred gender pronouns.”

In 2014, the liberal Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) published an article promoting the acceptance of “gay” as a category for Christians but offering the suggestion of celibacy for those who are not “married.” The United Methodist Church (UMC) also led with this path.

Christian colleges and university are also impacted by this movement. For instance, Calvin University (a school in Grand Rapids, MI that is connected to the Dutch Reformed tradition) has (in 2022) denounced premarital sex and defined marriage as between a man and a woman, however it still allows a support group for LGBTQ students on campus. In the 2020-21 academic year, the school allowed a bisexual student to be elected as student body president.

Matthew Vines, a self-identified “gay” man, and a Presbyterian authored the popular book God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships. Vines promotes celibacy outside of marriage but believes “gay Christians” have a theological case for same-sex marriage.

He has helped to shift the nature of the dialogue on this issue among Evangelicals. He says, “It’s a subtle but significant shift. (People are now) saying, ‘There’s nothing wrong with being gay in and of itself,’ and that is a big change.”

Moving the Goalpost

It is believed by many activists that the way to normalize all LGBTQIA+ issues is to take the path of least resistance with Evangelicals. If you claim to be celibate or “non-practicing,” then everyone drops their guard and chills out. Pragmatically, their theory seems to work. This approach has been repeatedly attempted in the more conservative Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) denomination, who so far has withstood the acceptance of those into positions of leadership who self-identify as “gay Christian,” “homosexual Christian,” or even “same-sex attracted Christian.” Even some Southern Baptists are moving in this direction. Some of their top seminary faculty have spoken at conferences that affirm the acceptance of “identity” as long as the individuals are non-practicing.

The Law of Identity

Many LGBTQIA+ advocates claim Jesus never taught on the matter, and they infer from this that He must have approved of such ideas. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Jesus said, regarding sexuality:

“Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So, they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt. 19:4-6, ESV).

The first law of formal logic is “The Law of Identity.” This very basic law asserts that “whatever a thing is, it is.” This kind of thesis also presents a “Classical Negation.” If something is true, the opposite is false (the Law of Non-Contradiction), and truth cannot in this sense be both true AND false (the Law of the Excluded Middle). So, when Jesus says there are two sexual categories of humans (male and female) in the original creation, He is describing a Universal Elimination all other possibilities.

A New Identity

One of the churches the Apostle Paul founded in the middle of the first century had many of the same sexual problems that exist in America today. Rather than teaching them to see themselves as “Christian swindlers” “Christian adulterers,” or such, Paul emphasized their rebirth and new identity in Christ.

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:9-11, ESV, emphasis added).

Paul encouraged them to identify their past sins and struggles but to look forward, not back. You will never overcome a sin or habit that you believe you ARE. If something defines your very existence, you will never move past it because it controls you. You may be a male or female who struggles with same-sex attraction (or illicit heterosexual attraction), but rather than defining yourself by a temptation, you should not only abstain from sin, but pursue righteousness instead.

“We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin” (Rom. 6:6).

This issue of identity is not just a side issue. It is the dam that holds back the floodgates of immorality in the Church. If you ARE something other than God says He made you to be, that makes Him out to be a liar. That makes humans, not God, the arbiters and definers of sexuality. The original argument in the garden from that serpent was, “Hath God REALLY said?” That is the enemy’s same approach today. God did not make anyone “gay” or “transgender.” He made them male and female. Sin has made them all these other things by which they self-identify. The solution is the same one the Church has been preaching for 2,000 years: The gospel of Jesus Christ that forgives sin and changes sinners.

Written by Nic Valdespino

When discussing covetousness, Christians often cite 1 Timothy 6:10 which states, “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils.” However, many often forget to mention the preceding verse: “But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction.” The Bible clearly warns us about the evils inherent within the relentless pursuit of wealth, and this teaching should be applied when individuals consider gambling. As a college student who has watched a number of friends become compulsive gamblers, I hope and pray that my peers will internalize the Lord’s advice and refrain from engaging in such a destructive habit.

I began my college career at a small private university in Virginia where the average family income of a student is greater than $250,000. Although I came from a relatively modest background and attended public high school, many of my classmates were the children of business tycoons and government officials born into generational wealth. As a result, a number of my closest friends had access to sizable checking accounts with relatively little oversight from their parents. Now, I do not believe there is anything inherently wrong about achieving success in the professional world or accruing wealth. However, I do believe that with great wealth comes great responsibility, and students who are receiving financial assistance from their parents should practice good stewardship of their family’s resources. Most of my friends adhered to this principle, but once virtual sports gambling emerged, many began to crumble.

One night, as my fraternity brothers and I sat around watching a meaningless baseball game on a weekday night, I noticed considerable tension in the room. I could not fathom why anyone would have such strong feelings toward a game between the Pirates and the Marlins, as none of my friends rooted for these teams or even played baseball. Growing up in a Christian household, I had been sheltered from the cruelties of gambling. Therefore, I was completely unaware of the possibility that my friends had bet money on the sporting event, especially because gambling had not yet been legalized in Virginia. Nonetheless, I quickly discovered that one of my friends had come in contact with an out-of-state bookie, permitting him to wager thousands of dollars of his parents’ money on a Marlins’ victory. This realization shocked me, and I questioned my friend, who served as a sort of mentor to me, what would happen if the Marlins lost. His response: “Let’s hope we don’t find out.”

Unfortunately for my friend and his family, the Marlins did lose that evening. The financial mismanagement sowed discord within his family, leading to a number of arguments and the erosion of vital parental support. Like so many other young people drawn in by what many say are the false promises of sports wagering giants like FanDuel, my friend descended into the pits of debt, a problem he sought to solve with more gambling.

According to a combination of national studies, approximately 1 in 20 college students meet the criteria for compulsive gambling. The rise in gambling addiction among the adolescent population is startling because the habit is associated with a host of other risky behaviors that can prove detrimental to a student’s personal life. The International Center for Responsible Gaming finds that, “students with gambling problems are more likely to use tobaccos, drink heavily or binge drink, smoke marijuana or use other illegal drugs, drive under the influence, and have a low GPA.” Additionally, studies have shown that approximately 40 percent of problem gamblers commit crimes, like embezzlement, theft, and drug distribution, to support their addiction. Thus, gambling proves detrimental to many students’ personal lives.

Gambling addictions also destroy families. A meta-analysis of 14 studies related to gambling and domestic violence discovered over 36 percent of families that contain an individual with problematic betting habits face domestic violence or child abuse. The betting habits also lead to increased familial stress, which translates into higher rates of divorce. The lifetime divorce rate for pathological gamblers is estimated to be from around 40 to over 50 percent. Therefore, I pray that my college peers who have become enmeshed in the destructive net of sports gambling abandon the behavior before they get married and become parents.

After my sophomore year of college, I decided to transfer to a large public university in hopes of escaping the growing unscrupulous culture of the wealthy, private school I attended in the past. Sadly, my hopes proved delusive as a number of my peers at my new school, despite growing up in middle-class backgrounds, maintained similar debilitating gambling habits.

When I arrived for my first day of class, I made friends with a bright young man who was pursuing a career as an investment banker. Despite his financial acumen, he had begun betting on sports games after receiving an offer from DraftKings, which promised $50 in free wagering credits. His habit did not cease once the free bets were exhausted, however, and he rapidly fell into debt, prompting him to request additional financial assistance from his blue-collar family. His parents warned of the repercussions of continued financial mismanagement, but he ignored them, continuing to gamble in hopes of striking a massive payday that would lift him out of the red. The day of reckoning finally came when my friend’s parents discovered that he owed DraftKings over $10,000. After months of rancorous disputes, the family elected to cut off their son financially, and he was forced to drop out of school in order to pay off his debt. To this day, he refuses to speak to his parents, emblematic of the harms associated with virtual sports betting.

I am so thankful to have been reared in a household that engrained in me the importance of being a good steward of wealth. My father often repeats Proverbs 15:27, “a greedy man brings trouble to his family,” in order to highlight the importance of remaining content with your finances. I recognize, however, that many children are not as blessed and fortunate as I am.

Thus, our government should not legalize and thereby encourage more gambling- but instead should have safeguards in place that help prevent children2 from falling into the same trap my college acquaintances have.

Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being.
~1 Corinthians 10:24~

This article was originally published by NCFamily.org.

Marriage is a gift from God. But marriage is in a sad state in America today, and we all suffer because of it.

I read recently about the movie star Joan Crawford who was legendary in her promiscuity. As her rival Bette Davis once reportedly sneered about her, “She slept with every male star at MGM except Lassie.”

Apparently, in the miserable and difficult childhood of Lucille LeSouer (who later adopted the name Joan Crawford), there was a wound from the absence of her father, according to Shaun Considine’s book, Bette and Joan, which became the basis for the mini-series, The Feud.

Considine quotes someone else about Crawford’s childhood: “Being abandoned so often traumatized Joan…She spent the rest of her life looking for a father—in husbands, lovers, studio executives, and directors.” To this Considine adds, “When she found the ideal candidate, Joan felt safe, secure, validated. In time she expected them to leave, to reject her. When they didn’t, she grew suspicious, then resentful, and found ways to make them depart.” So sad.

So far from God’s design, which is one man, one woman for life. His prohibitions against sex outside of marriage are for our good.

A fascinating article in a recent Wall Street Journal (February 5-6, 2022), highlighted the findings of a study based on the marriages and many divorces among 50,000 women in the National Survey of Family Growth.

One can infer from the article’s headline that it’s best to avoid cohabitating before marriage: “Too Risky to Wed in Your 20s? Not If You Avoid Cohabiting First: Research shows that marrying young without ever having lived together with a partner makes for some of the lowest divorce rates.”

Brad Wilcox and Lyman Stone, the article’s authors, observe, “The idea that cohabitation is risky is surprising, given that a majority of young adults believe that living together is a good way to pretest the quality of your partners and your partnership.” But couples who live together before they wed “are less likely to be happily married and more likely to land in divorce court.”

Through the years, similar studies have found the same results: to prepare best for marriage, save sex for marriage. Even in the archives of the UCLA, they cite a 1990s study from the Family Research Center in Washington, D.C., which says:  “Other findings indicate that saving sex for marriage reduces the risk of divorce, and monogamous married couples are the most sexually satisfied Americans.” If you’re unfaithful before marriage, why should you be faithful after getting married?

In previous generations, cohabitation was viewed as more of a scandal. Of course, not all marriages were good by any means.

My dad used to tell a story where he and mom were playing bridge one day against another couple. The woman kept yelling and berating her partner at every turn.

Finally, dad asked her, “Are you two married?”

And she snapped, “Of course we are! Do you think I’d live in sin with an idiot like that?”— pointing to her henpecked husband. When I shared this anecdote with a friend, he thought that that story might discourage someone from considering marriage instead of cohabitation. Well, without proper preparation, bad marriages happen. (Sadly, sometimes even with preparation.)

I thank God that I have 42 years of empirical evidence that I married a saint. After all, my fantastic wife has put up with me for more than four decades. Thankfully, we spent more time preparing for the marriage than we did for the wedding.

I write this on Valentine’s Day 2022—when we celebrate love and romance. Christian author Bill Federer notes that the best historical evidence is that Valentine’s Day customs go back to a third century Christian leader, who fell afoul of the Roman Empire and was martyred on February 14, 269.

The reason for St. Valentine’s martyrdom was not only his rejection of Roman idolatry but also because he defied the emperor, who forbade men in the Roman army to marry. Writes Federer: “Roman Emperor Claudius II needed more soldiers to fight the invading Goths. He believed that men fought better if they were not married, so he banned traditional marriage in the military.”

But some of these soldiers wanted to be married, and Valentine secretly performed weddings for them. When the Roman leaders found out about this, he was arrested and sentenced to death. The jailer, who had a sick daughter, asked his prisoner, the holy man, to pray for his child. She got better, and the saint wrote her a short, encouraging note, signing it from “your Valentine.”

Jesus said, “I have come that they might have life and have it more abundantly.” That includes our relationships.

God’s design for marriage is for our good, and it helps spare people a lot of unnecessary unhappiness.

This article was originally published by JerryNewcombe.com.

A British man now living in Florida who freely chooses to be in a type of erotic union that is by design sterile believes it is his right to create children who will have no connection to their mothers and no certainty about who their father is. Here is his morally repugnant, convoluted story.

In 1999, then-30-year-old Barrie Drewitt-Barlow and his then-35-year-old partner whom he later “married,” Tony Drewitt-Barlow, purchased eggs from Tracie McCune and rented the womb of Rosalind Bellamy to acquire their first two children: a boy named Aspen and a girl named Saffron.

The fertilized egg that became Aspen split, so they froze Aspen’s identical twin, defrosted him four years later, and implanted him in the rented womb of another woman, Donna Calabrese. Aspen now has an identical twin brother Orlando who is four years younger than he is.

About nine years later, the millionaire Drewitt-Barlow fathers purchased yet more eggs, rented Calabrese’s womb again, and had two more boys, Dallas and Jasper, born in 2010. The biological mother is a “Brazilian model whom Barrie spotted on the catwalk and paid £35,000 for the privilege” of donating her eggs.

Both men contributed sperm to the selfish, dystopian reproductive project, and while they know which biological child each sired, they’re not telling the children. Apparently, the two men are entitled to children, but their children aren’t entitled to know who their biological fathers are.

In an interview with the Daily Mail in 2015, Tony, the older Drewitt-Barlow, proclaimed that their lifelong commitment was ironclad:

Barrie and I will never split up. We’re soulmates. But also we’d never do that to our children because of the pain it would cause.

Last October, Barrie and Tony split up.

The now-50-year-old Barrie began an erotic relationship with his daughter’s 25-year-old bisexual ex-boyfriend, Scott Hutchison. Barrie and Scott then bought eggs and rented a womb for the purpose of gestating their triplets who are due in October. Barrie announced,

Our family has too many boys and too much testosterone! So we used sex selection to even things out. We know we are having girls. … We found a beautiful, young, educated egg donor. … We met 15 egg donors at the Beverly Wiltshire hotel, the hotel in the film Pretty Woman. We decided that would make the perfect setting to find the woman who would add the part of the DNA for our baby girl. Once we found our surrogate we transferred three blastocysts (embryos), two girls fertilised by Scott and one girl fertilised by me.

Barrie, his young paramour Scott, his ex Tony, Aspen, Saffron, Orlando, Dallas, Jasper, and the triplets will all be sharing the same home—just one big, strange family created to satisfy the desires of selfish adults.

Barrie isn’t done yet with his profligate inseminating. He donated sperm to a lesbian couple in the U.K. who will be giving birth one month before his and Scott’s triplets are born here in the United States.

Barrie writes about the nature of the homoerotic relationship into which he’s bringing three babies:

I know people will think Scott is only after my money and all that — he is, after all, 25 years younger than me — but I don’t care. I’m going to enjoy every moment that I can, while I can. After all, you only have one life.

This is the toxic fruit of the sexual revolution that began the erosion of cultural taboos regarding sexual activity. Sexual revolutionaries severed sexual acts from procreation, sexual acts from marriage, and then sexual acts from sexual differentiation. The only purpose for sex became carnal gratification. Sex lost all meaning. While children gained sexual autonomy—the right to erotic gratification—they lost the right to be raised by both a mother and a father, preferably their own biological parents.

The damage done to children’s rights and needs by the sexual revolution—from the denial of family through divorce and sperm and egg donation to the “trans”-cultic destruction of their hearts, minds, and bodies to their extermination in the womb—constitutes the justice issue of our time. How many presidential candidates who claim to care about social justice will address it?

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/The-rise-of-homosexual-family-madness_audio_01.mp3

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

One of the often-cited claims that seems to have taken hold is that the divorce rate in the church is the same as outside of the church. Yet, is this really true? The claim overlooks what the research really says about church attendance and its impact upon both marriage and divorce rates.

Marriage and church attendance have been falling in America as rates of cohabitation and out of wedlock births have increased over the last 50 years. The decline of religion and marriage have received a lot of attention, but the link between the two has sometimes been overlooked.

Christianity generally encourages marriage and discourages divorce. It would be peculiar to assume that those beliefs would not have any impact on the marital choices of believers. To understand why the claim of equal divorce rates hangs on, it is necessary to look at the devout.

Those who attend church three times a month, call them the devout, and those who attend church once a month or less, call them the less devout, reveals a clearer picture of marriage and divorce. While 70 percent of Americans describe themselves as Christian, that number is roughly twice the number of the devout who regularly attend church.

The devout have higher rates of marriage and significantly lower rates of divorce than the less devout and overall general public. Thus, active Christians do have a divorce rate different from the secular or less devout. To read more about this, click HERE.

This article was originally published by AFA of Indiana.

Some church members seem almost determined to divorce. They are unhappy and think that if they end their marriage, they can find a better mate. What should a pastor say to them? Or what should he say to a spouse whose partner wants out?

First, pastors should urge both spouses to read an important new book by Dr. Diane Medved, Don’t Divorce: Powerful Arguments for Saving and Revitalizing Your Marriage.

However, since few people buy books these days, here’s what the pastor might say, based on the author’s advice: “No matter how strong your desire for divorce at the moment, please consider that you could be making a mistake, especially if your partner is committed to you and wants to make your marriage satisfying for both of you.”

If your partner wants to leave, ask some questions: “What can I or we do to make our marriage more satisfying to you? Are you attracted to someone else? What can I improve about my habits or behavior that would show you I value you?”

Dr. Medved argues that “In divorce, emotions trump logic. So if you want to stop the divorce, you’ll need to appeal on an emotional level…In marriage, there’s a continuum from dire misery to ecstasy.” She urges you to take small incremental changes, and ask your partner if he/she sees improvements. Increase the number of favorable emotions, gestures and interchanges. Increase the percentage of your time together that is close and supportive.

For example, have a weekly date – doing something you both enjoy. Every Friday, my daily newspaper publishes Weekend, a special section promoting costly theater and music productions. However, there is one page called The Guide to the Lively Arts which lists free events, usually held in churches. It might be a pianist and cellist, or four saxophones playing classical music. The Maryland State Boychoir of 70 boys sang a wide range of songs.

Here are other reasons to avoid divorce. First, it is hazardous to your health. An analysis of 32 studies reported that divorcees had a 23 percent greater chance of dying during the survey period, and for men, a 31 percent higher risk.

Second, “financially, divorce is a lose-lose proposition,” Medved asserts. One economist reported that “Divorce reduces a person’s wealth by about three-quarters compared to that of a single person, while being married almost doubles comparative wealth.” Thus, a married person is worth double a single person, but a divorced person’s wealth is just a quarter of that!

If there are no children, divorce simply entails a division of assets. If children are involved, there is also a division of time and money far into the future. Holidays, birthdays and family celebrations require planning.

More important, divorce is a disaster for kids. They tend to blame themselves for the breakup, and feel shut out by separating parents. Split loyalty is agony. Children of divorce do poorly in school, suffer anxiety, stress and low self-esteem, are less likely to finish high school and are three times more likely to be expelled than kids from intact homes.

They are more apt to be juvenile delinquents and to live in poverty because incomes for non-poor mothers and children declines by 50 percent after divorce. They are less likely to move up the income ladder as adults. Only 26% with divorced parents move up to the middle or top third as adults, compared to 50% of children with intact parents. They are also more likely to commit suicide.

Divorce robs children of a triple birthright – security, wonder and optimism – that equips them to venture forth to a challenging world. “From this motivation you can rekindle the love and romance that brought you and your partner together to create them,” Medved writes.

In her landmark book, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce, Judith Wallerstein interviewed 131 children from 60 divorced families over 25 years, with intensive interviews every five years. She was surprised to discover that repercussions of divorce hit hardest when children became adults.

They had a tougher time forming intimate relationships. Only 40 percent eventually married, half the general population’s rate, and they were more likely to divorce.

Often adult children of divorce “are depressed and defeated.” And angry. One asked, “Did I want them to divorce? Did I like taking orders from my stepfather? Did my dad want me around? Did my mother ask me before she got a whole new family? Who listened to me? Who helped me grow up?”

Therefore, Medved asserts, “Staying together for their welfare is perhaps the most important stand a married couple can take for their children’s future.”

Read Part 1 HERE.

Mike McManus, a Duke graduate, was a reporter for three small papers before joining TIME magazine as its youngest correspondent in 1963. Mike started writing a syndicated column in 1977 called “The Northern Perspective,” suggesting how to revive the economy of America’s old industrial states from Maine to Minnesota. At its high point, the column was in 70 papers. In 1981, he began writing a second syndicated column, “Ethics & Religion.” For 11 years he wrote both weekly columns, but discontinued writing The Northern Perspective in 1992 when he got a contract to write a book, Marriage Savers: Helping Your Friends and Family Avoid Divorce, published in 1993 and expanded in 1995.

Mike and his wife, Harriet, are co-founders of Marriage Savers, an organization devoted to helping churches virtually eliminate divorce in their congregations and to pushing down city-wide divorce rates.

Read Mike’s complete byline HERE.

Written by Michael McManus

Marriage has fallen on hard times. Half of America’s marriages have ended in divorce since 1975 – a divorce rate that is triple that of Britain or France.

Dr. Diane Medved offers answers in a compelling new book, Don’t Divorce: Compelling Arguments for Saving and Revitalizing Your Marriage. 

It is must reading for anyone considering divorce.

“Mending your marriage is good for you and for your partner,” she writes. “Overcoming problems will teach you how to prevent future problems in your marriage…On the other hand, divorce harms your self-esteem, your present and future health and your standard of living.”

Of course, children will benefit from what she calls the “two-parent advantage.” They’ll learn from you how you resolve conflict, learning that rifts between people can be overcome. However, “your children will suffer if you divorce. Your separation will have permanent psychological effects, perhaps crippling their own romantic relationships.”

Oddly, no seminary teaches pastors how to heal marriages. For example, Rev. Jeffrey Meyers of Overland Park, Kansas said he was flummoxed by a husband whose wife wanted a divorce, not knowing what to say.

Unfortunately, every state has passed “No Fault Divorce” laws which allow either spouse to declare the marriage “irreconcilable.” Four out of five of their spouses disagree, but can’t claim in court that the marriage IS reconcilable. Medved comments: “You are half of your marriage, yet…it seems you are not as important as the partner who wants out.”

Since California Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the first No Fault Divorce law in 1969, the number of divorces nearly doubled in a decade from 639,000 to 1,189,000. Medved writes, “The general importance of children in divorce has led some marriage advocates to suggest that except in abuse cases, a divorce shouldn’t be granted to those with kids unless both parents agree to it.”

Medved footnotes that statement with a reference to my book, How To Cut America’s Divorce Rate in Half – A Strategy Every State Should Adopt. If state divorce laws required couples with children to agree to divorce, I believe the divorce rate could be cut in half. To date, no state has taken this step.

What most pastors do with marriages in crisis is refer them to counselors – a big mistake. “All forms of marital counseling are associated with a two- to three-fold increase in the likelihood of divorce,” according to a book, Covenant Marriage.

Medved asks, “Are you an honest person?” If so, how could you be unfaithful to your spouse?

Even if infidelity is not an issue, divorce forces you to disconnect with the person you vowed to love forever.” That “strips away joy, injecting sadness and despair.”

Therefore she argues for the alternative: to consider the long-term view, “preserving the history you’ve shared with your spouse, and creating footing for an improved future. Divorce, on the other hand, dishonors the vow you made, cuts off a substantial portion of your life (and) harms your children.”

Divorced men live 10 years less than married men; women, four years less, and their children, five years shorter lives.

Medved notes that two-thirds of marriages are in “low-conflict marriages” which “offer the best hope for being saved, and strengthened for the sake of children. Staying together for their welfare is perhaps the most important stand a married couple can take for their children’s future.”

The major reason people divorce is that they think they will be happier, perhaps with a new mate. However, a British study reports that 54 percent of those who divorced, later regretted it. Many who divorce hope for a happier remarriage. However, millions remain single after a divorce. In the “marriage market” a divorced person is not as desirable to the opposite sex as the never-married.

Two-thirds of those with children who remarry – experience a second divorce! Why? There are perpetual fights between kids and stepparents. Kids say, “I don’t want a new mom,” and can drive her out.

Medved poses a disturbing question: “If you saw your children downing in a lake, would you jump in to save them?” Of course. “But if you divorce, you throw them into the lake…Therefore, change the negative aspects of your marriage.”

Here’s some good news. Two out of three unhappily married couples who avoided divorce and worked at their marriage – ended up happily married five years later!

Up Next:  Don’t Divorce – Part 2

Mike McManus, a Duke graduate, was a reporter for three small papers before joining TIME magazine as its youngest correspondent in 1963. Mike started writing a syndicated column in 1977 called “The Northern Perspective,” suggesting how to revive the economy of America’s old industrial states from Maine to Minnesota. At its high point, the column was in 70 papers. In 1981, he began writing a second syndicated column, “Ethics & Religion.” For 11 years he wrote both weekly columns, but discontinued writing The Northern Perspective in 1992 when he got a contract to write a book, Marriage Savers: Helping Your Friends and Family Avoid Divorce, published in 1993 and expanded in 1995.

Mike and his wife, Harriet, are co-founders of Marriage Savers, an organization devoted to helping churches virtually eliminate divorce in their congregations and to pushing down city-wide divorce rates.

Read Mike’s complete byline HERE.

Written By Kevin DeYoung

Try arguing with left-leaning Christians about homosexuality and within the first five minutes someone will throw divorce and remarriage in your face.  Much to my chagrin, I’ve been embroiled in debates about homosexuality many times, and every time, someone defending homosexual behavior brings up divorce.  “If marriage is so important to you,” the retort will go, “why don’t you ever talk about the sin of divorce?”  The implication being: “You are just picking on homosexuals.  You don’t follow the literal letter of the law any more than we do.  If you did, you would be focusing on divorce, because that’s the bigger issue in our churches.”

Where There’s Smoke…
When it comes to debating homosexuality, divorce is both a smokescreen and a fire.  It is a smokescreen because the two issues–divorce and homosexuality–are far from identical.  For starters, there are no groups in our denominations whose raison d’etre is the celebration of divorce.  People are not advocating new policies in our churches that affirm the goodness of divorce.  Conservatives, in the culture and in the mainline, keep talking about homosexuality because that is the fault line right now.  We’d love to talk (and do) about how to have a healthy marriage.  We’d love to talk (and do) about the glory of the Trinity, but the battle right now (at least one of them) is over homosexuality.  So we cannot be silent on this issue.

Just as importantly, the biblical prohibition against divorce explicitly allows for exceptions; the prohibition against homosexuality does not.  The traditional Protestant position, as stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith for example, maintains that divorce is permissible on grounds of marital infidelity or desertion by an unbelieving spouse.  Granted, the application of these principles is difficult and the question of remarriage after divorce gets even trickier, but almost all Protestants have always held that divorce is sometimes acceptable.  Simply put, homosexuality and divorce are different issues because according to the Bible and Christian tradition the former is always wrong, while the latter is not.

Finally, the “what about divorce?” argument is not a good as it sounds because many of our churches do take divorce seriously.  I realize that many churches don’t (more on that in a minute).  But a lot of the same churches that speak out against homosexuality also speak out against illegitimate divorce.  I’ve said more about homosexuality in the blogosphere because there’s a controversy around the issue in the wider church.  But I’ve said more about divorce in my church because this is the more dangerous issue for us (and most congregations I imagine).  Virtually every single discipline case we’ve encountered as a board of elders has been about divorce.  The majority of pastoral care crises I have been involved in have dealt with failed or failing marriages.  My church, like many others, takes seriously all kinds of sins, including illegitimate divorce.  We don’t always know how to handle every situation, but I can say with a completely clear conscience that we never turn a blind eye to divorce.

…There’s Probably Some Fire
And yet…and yet, many conservative evangelicals have been negligent in dealing with illegitimate divorce and remarriage.  Pastors have not preached on the issue for fear of offending scores of their members.  Elder Boards have not practiced church discipline on those who sin in this area because, well, they don’t practice discipline for much of anything.  Counselors, friends, and small groups have not gotten involved early enough to make a difference in pre-divorce situations.  Christian attorneys have not thought enough about their responsibility in encouraging marital reconciliation. Church leaders have not helped the uneducated to understand God’s teaching about the sanctity of marriage, and we have not helped those already wrongly remarried to experience forgiveness for their past mistakes.

So yes, there is plenty of duplicity to go around.  The evangelical church, in many places, gave up and caved in on divorce and remarriage.  But the remedy to this negligence is not more negligence.  The slow, painful cure is more biblical exposition, more active pastoral care, more faithful use of discipline, more word-saturated counseling, and more prayer–for illegitimate divorce, for homosexuality, and for all the other sins that are more easily condoned than confronted.

Kevin DeYoung is the Senior Pastor at University Reformed Church (RCA) in East Lansing, Michigan, across the street from Michigan State University.

USA Today recently published an article about whether the popular perception that Christians divorce at nearly the same rate as non-Christians is really true. The article’s conclusion? It’s a matter of semantics.

For the last several years, many publications and preachers have lamented about statistics from the Barna Group (a leading research organization tracking statistics about faith and society) indicating that Christians divorce at almost the same rate as non-Christians. Some researchers, including Focus on the Family’s Glenn Stanton, have contested that it depends on what type of “Christian” is being evaluated.

Researchers at Barna say their statistics focus more on theological commitments, whereas other statistics focus more on how often a self-identifying Christian attends services.

Brad Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, agrees there’s been some confusion. Wilcox’s analysis of the National Survey of Families and Households has found that Americans who attend religious services several times a month were about 35 percent less likely to divorce than those with no religious affiliation.

Click HERE to read the USA Today article.