marriage - old rules / new rules

R E F L E C T I O N S

The Best Things In Life The Best Things In Life Are Free Are Free

The Cost of living seems to go up every dayThe Cost of living seems to go up every day

Whether at the gas pumpWhether at the gas pumps or the grocery stores or the grocery store

WWe wonder how we’ll make ends meete wonder how we’ll make ends meet

And next day the prices are higher than before.And next day the prices are higher than before.

But we’ve all been blessed beyond measureBut we’ve all been blessed beyond measure

WWe know there’ll always be plenty to eate know there’ll always be plenty to eat

AA roof over our heads; a warm bed to sleeproof over our heads; a warm bed to sleep

WWe don’t have to live on the street.e don’t have to live on the street.

There’ll always be those who complainThere’ll always be those who complain

‘What, are we having beans again tonight?’‘What, are we having beans again tonight?’

In many places on this earth of oursIn many places on this earth of ours

Beans might be a family’Beans might be a family’s meal that night.s meal that night.

What does it cost to watch the sunrise?What does it cost to watch the sunrise?

Or enjoy the colourful rainbow afOr enjoy the colourful rainbow after the rainter the rain

Or to listen to the enthusiastic song of the birdsOr to listen to the enthusiastic song of the birds

As the sun breaks through the clouds again.As the sun breaks through the clouds again.

God has given us so much beauty in natureGod has given us so much beauty in nature

Birds busily building their nestBirds busily building their nests in the springs in the spring

TTo the golden fields of grain at harvest timeo the golden fields of grain at harvest time

When geese are getting ready to try out their wings.When geese are getting ready to try out their wings.

How could we forget the smell of a turkey roastingHow could we forget the smell of a turkey roasting

Or enjoying the laughter of our children at play?Or enjoying the laughter of our children at play?

And having the love of family and friendsAnd having the love of family and friends

That’That’s something we should cherish every day!s something we should cherish every day!

In this countryIn this country, we have freedom of speech, we have freedom of speech

Freedom to worship how or whenever we deviseFreedom to worship how or whenever we devise

WWe can all go to sleep tonight in safetye can all go to sleep tonight in safety

Knowing that tomorrow the sun will rise again.Knowing that tomorrow the sun will rise again.

Our God is always near not far awayOur God is always near not far away

He’He’s ready to hear us one and alls ready to hear us one and all

His phone line is never busyHis phone line is never busy

He’He’s just waiting for us to call.s just waiting for us to call.

WWe all have our joys and our sorrowse all have our joys and our sorrows

WWe wonder why this or that is happening to mee wonder why this or that is happening to me

But when we remember all our blessingsBut when we remember all our blessings

WWe can see the best things in life are free. e can see the best things in life are free.

By: Elaine VBy: Elaine V. Chometsky. Chometsky

C O N T E N T S

few years ago, our Sunday service happened to fall on St.Patrick’s Day. While my first thought was to serve green cof-fee during our fellowship time after the service, I decided todo a little research on the life of St. Patrick and speak abouthis missionary work.

I soon discovered that: “When he was about sixteen he was capturedby Irish raiders and taken as a slave to Ireland, where he lived for sixyears before escaping and returning to his family. He entered thechurch. He later returned to Ireland as a missionary in the north andwest of the island....By the eighth century he had become the patronsaint of Ireland” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick).

Another source that I read also explained that while Patrick was quitesuccessful in introducing Christianity to the pagan Irish tribes, he wasnot as successful in encouraging them to adopt formal marriage, as apractice. Apparently, the practice at the time was simply for a man topledge his commitment to a woman and they would then live together.

That short review of Patrick’s life showed me again that the institutionof Christian marriage certainly has an interesting history.

Today, Christians find themselves dealing with similar issues as welive in a society that doesn’t place as much value on a marriage cere-mony, or as some would say, “A piece of paper.” Add to this the fact thatover half of marriages (even with those professing to be Christians) endin divorce, and it doesn’t take a “rocket scientist” to see that being andremaining married in 21st Century Canada presents a challenge.

This issue I’ve asked our writers to try to tackle the subject of Christianmarriage from a number of different perspectives. Most of the articleshelp define what Christian marriage is all about. However, this issuealso discusses the subject of divorce and what happens when the mar-riage relationship goes awry.

I think it is this word, “relationship,” that is the key in trying to under-stand and describe marriage. In fact, the apostle Paul writes inEphesians 5 that the marriage relationship is likened to the relationshipthat Jesus has with the Church (see Neil Earle’s article, “Dear Ladies:What I Meant To Say...” ).

In the same way that God seeks a relationship with each and everyoneof us, hopefully it is our desire that we discover the gift of a lasting andloving relationship with those who are part of our own families.

“Out With The Old, In With The New”Out with the old and in with the new” is a saying oftenshouted as the New Year is welcomed. I am thankful thisdoes not apply in most areas of our lives.

12

FRONT COVER: Marriage presents some challenges toChristians in the 21st Century.Cover Photo: © Designpics and Jewel ClendeningBack Cover: © DesignpicsAdditional photos and illustrations: © Designpics unless otherwisenoted.

1

Personal 2Director’s Desk 10Women’s Ministry 12Youth Corner 14Theme Articles 15Commentary 23Bible Study 24National News 32

L’union libre est-elle le nouveau mariage ?Je discutais récemment du mariage avec un amipasteur. Nous nous sommes entretenus de quelques-unes des difficultés liées à la préparation et à la célébra-tion du mariage au 21e siècle.

4

Is Cohabitation The “New” Marriage?I recently spoke with a pastor friend of mine aboutthe topic of marriage. We discussed some of the chal-lenges of preparing and performing marriages in the21st century.

2

Northern Light magazine is the official magazine of theWorldwide Church of God, Canada. It exists to share thestories of our members and congregations on theirChristian journey. Northern Light does this by featuringarticles that encourage, nurture and inform.

Le magazine Northern Light est le magazine officiel del’Église universelle de Dieu, au Canada. Il sert à raconterles histoires de nos membres et de nos assemblées toutle long de leur voyage chrétien, au moyen d’articles quiencouragent, nourrissent et informent.

Bill HallNL

T H I S M O N T H ’ S T H E M E

Marriage...Old Rules/New Rules

A MESSAGE FROM THE EDITOR

AA

“Dear Ladies: What I Meant To Say...”

Have you ever thought that the intensely hard-dri-ving Paul of Tarsus was a writer who needed to clarifyhis more controversial statements?

16

N O R T H E R N L I G H T

most common form of first unionsamong young adults. But is cohabitationthe same as marriage? The province ofQuebec has the highest cohabitationrate in the world at around 30%, whileCanada as a whole stands at about16%. Without Quebec, cohabitating cou-ples in Canada would make up 12% ofcouples who are living together.

Is cohabitation the new marriage? Iwould like to discuss this important topicas it impacts us as a society, but moreimportantly how the church should beviewing and responding to this trend.

We have all attended weddings wherethe minister leads the wedding ceremo-ny and the bride and groom look intoeach other’s eyes as they pledge tocommit themselves to each other. Wehave seen the rings, the flowers, and

heard the songs. In the midst of thesewonderful parts of the service there aretwo significant events that usually takeplace in a Canadian Christian wedding.There is the signing of the marriagelicense and a prayer of God’s joining ofthe couple. These two events may notseem the most exciting part of the mar-riage ceremony but they do distinguishmarriage from the idea of cohabitation.They represent the civil and religiousefforts to formalize the couple’s union.

In the Netherlands, for example, it is stillthe law that a civil marriage ceremonyperformed by a Justice of the Peacemust be conducted before a religiousversion can take place. In Canada, mostreligious representatives (i.e. ministers)are agents of the state and perform bothduties at the same time. It is important tonote that even in Canada we have an

2

recently spoke with a pastor friendof mine about the topic of mar-riage. We discussed some of thechallenges of preparing and per-forming marriages in the 21st cen-tury. We chatted about marriage

preparation courses and counselingsessions designed to assist new couplesin building stronger marriages.Eventually we came to the topic of deal-ing with the flood of couples coming tous for marriage services who have beenliving together. My friend said, “I don’teven know why people get married any-more.” I thought that was a good ques-tion and one that needed to beanswered. Is cohabitation the same asmarriage?

The idea of cohabitation, or a couple liv-ing together before marriage, hasbecome so accepted that it is now the

IIIs Cohabitation

The “New” Marriage?

P E R S O N A L

By Todd MartinPastor, Harvest ChristianFellowship, Abbotsford BC

3

those who enter marriage will care fortheir spouses through thick and thin, insickness and in health. With the histori-cal social stigma of sex outside of mar-riage and poor birth control methods, the

government wanted to limit the need forsocial welfare by legislating who wasresponsible for whom.

Much of the Christian era has been filledwith informal marriage ceremoniesestablished by community recognitionand support. Although the concept ofmarriage is universal across culturesand was a necessity for survival, theChristian community recognized mar-riage as a covenant with God, made forlife, and consequently divorce wasalmost non-existent.

After the Great War and the SecondWorld War, public attitude to dating andnon-marital sexuality became muchmore relaxed and less condemning. Thesexual revolution of the 1960s gave birthto increasing divorce rates, cohabitationas a marriage alternative, and decliningmarriage rates. Unlike the social outcryregarding skyrocketing divorce rates,cohabitation as a normal form of coupleformation has come into vogue withbarely a peep. Two generations later, theeffects of these demographic shifts con-tinue to be felt.

Although its popularity began as an“anti-establishment” form of relationshipformation, cohabitation has, in less thantwenty years, become a form of datingfor the many who participate in it.

Young adults are spending longer peri-ods of time in singlehood while pursuingadvanced education and establishingthemselves financially. Combined with amore socially accepting attitude to sexu-al relations outside of marriage, effectivebirth control, and being the jaded prod-ucts of the divorce culture, there is littlerush for young people to enter marriage.Yet, in spite of this trend, the youth ofCanada still have a desire to get marriedand the majority eventually will.

So how does cohabitation fit in? Let’slook at what we know about those whocohabit in Canada.

Let me summarize some of what weknow about the impact of cohabitation’seffect on relationships and the people inthem. Then I will address the Christianresponse to the issue.

First the facts:

1. Living together before marriageincreases the risk of breaking up aftermarriage.

2. Primarily younger adults cohabitalthough the percentage in each agegroup is rising.

3. Living together outside of marriageincreases the risk of domestic violencefor women, and the risk of physical andsexual abuse for children.

4. Unmarried couples have lower levelsof happiness and well-being than mar-ried couples.

5. Serial or multiple short-term cohabita-tions are very detrimental to future rela-tionship stability.

6. Commitment levels by one or both ofthe partners are known to be less than inthe context of marriage.

7. Women experience a disproportionalpercentage of the negative aspects ofcohabitation.

J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y / M A R C H 2 0 0 9

acknowledgement by the couple beingmarried that they are entering both alegal contract (signing the license) and acovenant agreement with each other inthe presence of God and witnesses.

With of the outpouring of the Holy Spiritand the founding of the church, Godrevealed a higher plane to the universaland age-old social custom of marriageas a type of Christ and the church(Ephesians 5) and a vehicle for God tosanctify unbelievers (1 Corinthians 7).As the church developed, its role in mar-riages moved beyond theJewish/Roman roots of presiding overthe ceremony, to becoming the onlyauthoritative officiants of Christian wed-dings.

By the second century, after the found-ing of the church, we see the recom-mendation for the church to be involvedin marriages by the epistle of St. Ignatiusto St. Polycarp: “It becometh men andwomen, when they wed, to marry withthe consent of the bishop, that the mar-riage may be after the Lord and not afterconcupiscence.” Notice that with theIgnatius/Polycarp correspondence, thechurch was illegal yet involved in mar-riage solemnizing.

The church does not take its lead fromsociety but from God. The fact that thegovernment legalizes marriages is sec-ond to the fact that God joins them andmakes them holy. In fact the govern-ment’s involvement in marriage is pri-marily to make sure that individuals don’tbecome the care of the state when oth-ers have agreed to provide for them.Legal marriage contracts ensure that

P E R S O N A L C O N T I N U E D

With of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the founding ofthe church, God revealed a higher plane to the universal andage-old social custom of marriage as a type of Christ and thechurch (Ephesians 5) and a vehicle for God to sanctify unbe-lievers (1 Corinthians 7).

able growth of cohabitation in recentyears does not appear to be in children’sor the society’s best interest. The evi-dence suggests that it has weakenedmarriage and the intact, two-parent fam-ily…” Anne-Marie Ambert of the VanierInstitute of the Family in Canada states,“Cohabitation is a more insecure andpotentially hurtful situation than mar-riage is, even considering the currentdivorce rate.”

4 N O R T H E R N L I G H T

I realize that marriage does not immu-nize a couple from any of these prob-lems, but it does reduce the likelihood ofthem and I think that is an importantmessage to send to our youth.

Researchers David Popenoe andBarbara Whitehead of the NationalMarriage Project of the United States,summarize their research on cohabita-tion by saying, “Despite its widespreadacceptance by the young, the remark

The social experts are by no means intotal agreement about the negative con-sequences of cohabitation and especial-ly as it becomes more and more sociallyaccepted. But regardless of the secularcommunities’ view on cohabitation asthe new marriage, how are we asChristians to view this approach to rela-tionships? Is cohabitation the same asmarriage?

A clue is found in the concept ofbetrothal. As I previously mentioned,Christian marriage practices were heav-ily influenced by Jewish and Roman tra-dition. The idea of betrothal is a conceptmany Christians are familiar withbecause of its connection to the relation-ship of Mary and Joseph. At the time ofMary’s pregnancy with Jesus, she wasbetrothed but not married to Joseph.

“Despite its widespread acceptance by the young, theremarkable growth of cohabitation in recent years does notappear to be in children’s or the society’s best interest. Theevidence suggests that it has weakened marriage and theintact, two-parent family…” (David Popenoe and BarbaraWhitehead).


5J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y / M A R C H 2 0 0 9

Remember that Jesus was accused ofbeing an illegitimate child, born out ofwedlock.

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as

follows: when His mother Mary had beenbetrothed to Joseph, before they cametogether she was found to be with childby the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18).

The idea of being betrothed would besimilar to our modern idea of engage-ment. It was a formal agreement that acouple entered in which they promisedto marry. They were committed to oneanother but were not married. Churchhistory over the past 2000 years showsthat during the middle of the first millen-nium the concept of betrothal was verysocially relevant. Pope Benedict I (573-577), in writing to the Patriarch of Gran,states that it is the sexual act in the con-text of marriage that makes two peopleone and that betrothal was not binding ifone party chose to leave. The illustrationof Joseph and Mary and church historyare important points, because they indi-cate that although betrothal was a formalagreement to marry, the act of sexualintimacy was not accepted within it.

With this thought I believe we touch onthe real issue of cohabitation thatChristians have to address—sex outsideof marriage.

Common reasons cited for cohabitationinvolve the financial benefits of sharingexpenses, opportunities to experiencewhat it would be like to be married to aperson, and access to regular sexualintimacy. It is the latter that Christiansneed to deal with. A large percentage ofCanadians—and a large portion ofChristians—are accepting of a consent-ing couple in a committed relationshipbeing sexually active. Less than 16% ofCanadians think sex before marriage iswrong.

A study of “born again” Christians thatmade a distinction between traditionaland non-traditional evangelicals foundthat 26% of traditional evangelicals

(those who were more active in theirchurches and had a higher view ofScripture) saw nothing wrong with pre-marital sex compared to 46% of non-tra-ditionals. I don’t see how Scripturemakes provision for sexual expressionoutside a heterosexual marriage union,period.

I have performed many marriages. Theline of the ceremony that sticks out tome the most is, “Marriage is a divineinstitution ordained by God.” Althoughmarriage has taken many forms over thehistory of humanity, even in its secularform, it has always been distinguishedfrom casual as well as premarital rela-tionships.

I believe the church should always bepro-marriage. That means educating ouryoung people about the sacredness ofmarriage. We need to help them not set-tle for imitations and shortcuts that notonly fall short of the original, but maydamage experiencing the fullness of afuture marriage.

I believe we need to recognize that welive in a broken world with fallen people.We confront divorce issues in the churcheven though God weeps at it, so weneed not shy away from dealing withcohabitating couples who seek to glorifyGod with their lives. Marriage is God’sdesign and a committed couple must bemoving toward that design and recog-nize the fruitlessness of their arrange-ment. There is no middle ground.

The process of helping a couple fulfillthe direction they are moving in requiresgrace and support, not judgment andcondemnation. Cohabitation is not the

new marriage, it is not the same as mar-riage and that is a message we need toget out.

For further information I direct you to twovery good websites and one article.They are not Christian, but provide thereader with some of the latest informa-tion on cohabitation.

The National Marriage Projecthttp://marriage.rutgers.edu/

Vanier Institute of the Familyhttp://www.vifamily.ca/library/cft/cohabitation.html

Article: “Would You Live Common-Law?”By Anne Milanht tp: / /www.statcan.gc.ca/studies-etudes/11-008/feature-caracter is-tique/5018784-eng.pdf

A large percentage of Canadians—and a large portion ofChristians—are accepting of a consenting couple in a commit-ted relationship being sexually active. Less than 16% ofCanadians think sex before marriage is wrong.

NL



dant que les futurs époux se regardentdans les yeux en se promettant des’aimer l’un l’autre. Nous avons vu lesalliances, les fleurs et entendu leschants. Intercalés dans ces parties mer-veilleuses de la cérémonie, il y a deuxévénements importants qui ont généra-lement lieu lors d’un mariage chrétien auCanada : la signature des registres etune prière à Dieu pour unir le couple.Ces deux événements ne semblentpeut-être pas la partie la plus emballan-te de la cérémonie, mais ils marquent ladistinction entre le mariage et l’unionlibre. Ils représentent les efforts civils etreligieux pour formaliser l’union d’uncouple.

Aux Pays-Bas, par exemple, la loi exigequ’une cérémonie civile du mariage soitcélébrée par un représentant de la justi-ce avant qu’ait lieu une version religieu-

tellement acceptée qu’elle est mainte-nant la forme la plus courante de pre-mière relation parmi les jeunes adultes.Mais l’union libre est-elle la même choseque le mariage ? Le Québec détient letaux d’unions libres le plus élevé dans lemonde, soit environ 30 %, tandis que leCanada affiche un taux d’environ 16 %.Sans les chiffres du Québec, le taux decouples qui vivent en union libre auCanada serait de 12 %.

L’union libre est-elle le nouveau mariage ?J’aimerais aborder ce sujet important,parce qu’il a un effet sur nous en tantque société, mais plus important encore,j’aimerais discuter de la manière dontl’Église devrait considérer cette tendan-ce et y réagir.

Nous avons tous assisté à des mariagesoù le célébrant officie la cérémonie pen-

e discutais récemment dumariage avec un ami pasteur.Nous nous sommes entretenusde quelques-unes des diffi-cultés liées à la préparation et àla célébration du mariage au

21e siècle. Nous avons causé de coursde préparation au mariage et deséances de relations d’aide destinés àaider les nouveaux couples à bâtir unmariage solide. En fin de compte, nousavons abordé le sujet des nombreuxcouples qui viennent à nous pour êtremariés et qui vivent déjà ensemble. Monami m’a dit : « Je ne sais même pluspourquoi les gens se marient ». Jepense que c’est un sujet qui mérited’être discuté. L’union libre est-elle lamême chose que le mariage ?

L’union libre, ou la cohabitation d’uncouple avant le mariage, est devenue

JJ

ÉDITORIAL

de Todd MartinPasteurÉglise Harvest Christian Fellowship

L’union libre est-elle le nouveau mariage ?


se. Au Canada, la plupart des représen-tants religieux (c’est-à-dire les prêtres etles pasteurs) sont des agents de l’État etexécutent les deux devoirs en mêmetemps. Il est important de remarquerque, même au Canada, nous reconnais-sons que le couple qui se maries’engage légalement (par la signaturedes registres) et se lie l’un à l’autre dansla présence de Dieu et de témoins.

Avec l’effusion du Saint-Esprit et la fon-dation de l’Église, Dieu a élevé la coutu-me sociale et universelle ancienne dumariage a un niveau supérieur : il estdevenu un type de Christ et de l’Église(Éphésiens 5) et un moyen pour Dieu desanc t i f i e r l es non -c royan ts(1 Corinthiens 7). À mesure que l’Églises’est développée, son rôle dans lesmariages a dépassé les racines juives etromaines de présider la cérémonie pourdevenir la seule autorité en matière demariages chrétiens.

Dès le 2e siècle, nous savons d’aprèssa lettre à saint Polycarpe que saintIgnace recommande à l’Église des’impliquer dans les mariages : « Ilconvient aussi aux hommes et auxfemmes qui se marient, de contracterleur union avec l’avis de l’évêque, afinque leur mariage se fasse selon leSeigneur et non selon la passion ».Remarquez que, d’après la correspon-dance entre Ignace et Polycarpe,l’Église célébrait des mariages, même sicela était « illégal ».

L’Église ne prend pas son autorité de lasociété mais de Dieu. Le fait que le gou-vernement légalise les mariages estsecondaire au fait que Dieu les unit etles sanctifie. En réalité, la participation

du gouvernement dans le mariage viseprincipalement à s’assurer que des per-sonnes ne dépendent pas de l’Étatquand d’autres ont accepté de s’encharger. Des contrats de mariage légauxassurent que ceux qui se marient pren-dront soin de leur conjoint contre ventset marées, dans la maladie et la santé.Avec le stigmate social historique desrelations sexuelles hors mariage et les

méthodes de contrôle des naissancespeu efficaces, le gouvernement voulaitlimiter le besoin d’assistance sociale enlégiférant la responsabilité de chacundes conjoints.

La majeure partie de la période chré-tienne a été remplie de cérémonies demariage informelles établies par lareconnaissance et le soutien de la com-munauté. Même si le concept du maria-ge est universel à travers les cultures etétait nécessaire pour la survie, la com-munauté chrétienne a reconnu le maria-ge comme une alliance avec Dieu, faitepour la vie, et en conséquence, le divor-ce était presque inexistant.

Après la Première et la DeuxièmeGuerre mondiale, l’attitude publiqueenvers les fréquentations et la sexualitéhors mariage est devenue beaucoupplus relaxe et moins condamnatrice. Larévolution sexuelle des années 1960 adonné lieu à une augmentation du tauxde divorces, à l’union libre comme autreoption au mariage et à la baisse du tauxdes mariages. Contrairement au tollésocial que la montée en flèche du tauxde divorces a provoqué, l’union librecomme forme normale de compositiond’un couple est devenue courante, sansgrande contestation. Deux générations

plus tard, les effets de ces virementsdémographiques continuent de se fairesentir.

Bien que la popularité de l’union libre aitcommencé comme une forme « anti-establishment » de la composition d’uncouple, elle est devenue, en moins devingt ans, une forme de fréquentationpour les nombreuses personnes qui yadhèrent.

Les jeunes adultes sont plus longtempscélibataires, alors qu’ils poursuivent desétudes supérieures et s’établissentfinancièrement. Face à une attitudesociale plus libérale concernant les rela-tions sexuelles hors mariage et à desméthodes de contraception plus effi-caces, et étant le produit blasé de la cul-ture du divorce, les jeunes sont peupressés de se marier. Cependant, mal-gré cette tendance, les jeunes cana-diens ont toujours le désir de se marier,et la majorité se mariera un jour.

Comment l’union libre s’intègre-t-elledans tout ça ? Examinons ce que noussavons sur ceux qui vivent en union libreau Canada.

Permettez-moi de résumer certainesdes données connues quant aux effetsde l’union libre sur la relation et sur ceuxqui vivent ce genre de relation. Puis,j’aborderai la réponse chrétienne à cettequestion.

D’abord les faits :

1. Vivre ensemble avant le mariage aug-mente le risque de séparation après lemariage.

2. Essentiellement, ce sont les jeunesadultes qui vivent en union libre même sile pourcentage dans chaque groupeaugmente.

3. Vivre ensemble sans être marié aug-mente le risque de violence domestiquechez les femmes et le risque de vio-lences physiques et sexuelles chez lesenfants.

ÉDITORIAL

Avec l’effusion du Saint-Esprit et la fondation de l’Église, Dieua élevé la coutume sociale et universelle ancienne dumariage a un niveau supérieur : il est devenu un type de Christet de l’Église (Éphésiens 5) et un moyen pour Dieu de sanctifierles non-croyants (1 Corinthiens 7).


4. Les couples non mariés ont un niveaude bonheur et de bien-être moins élevéque les couples mariés.

5. Les unions libres en série ou multiplesà court terme sont très nuisibles pour lastabilité d’une relation future.

6. La mesure d’engagement par l’un oules deux partenaires est reconnue pourêtre moindre dans une union libre quedans le contexte du mariage.

7. Les femmes vivent un pourcentagedisproportionnel des aspects négatifs del’union libre.

Je suis conscient que le mariagen’immunise pas un couple contre aucunde ces problèmes, mais il en réduit lapossibilité, et je pense que c’est un mes-sage important à envoyer à notre jeu-nesse.

Les chercheurs David Popenoe etBarbara Whitehead du NationalMarriage Project des États-Unis, résu-ment leur recherche sur l’union libre endisant : « Malgré le fait que l’union libresoit largement acceptée parmi lesjeunes, son accroissement remarquabledans les dernières années ne semblepas être à l’avantage des enfants et dela société. La preuve suggère qu’elle aaffaibli le mariage et la famille tradition-nelle avec deux parents […]. » Anne-Marie Ambert de l’Institut Vanier de lafamille au Canada déclare : « L’unionlibre est une situation plus incertaine etpossiblement plus dommageable que lemariage, même en tenant compte dutaux de divorce actuel. »

Les experts sociaux ne sont pas tous enaccord sur les conséquences négativesde l’union libre et surtout depuis qu’elle

ÉDITORIAL

« Malgré le fait que l’union libre soit largement acceptéeparmi les jeunes, son accroissement remarquable dans lesdernières années ne semble pas être à l’avantage des enfantset de la société. La preuve suggère qu’elle a affaibli le maria-ge et la famille traditionnelle avec deux parents […]. » [DavidPopenoe et Barbara Whitehead]


est devenue de plus en plus socialementacceptée. Mais indépendamment dupoint de vue des communautés sécu-lières qui considèrent l’union librecomme le nouveau mariage, commentdevons-nous, en tant que chrétiens,considérer cette approche à la relationde couple ? L’union libre est-elle lamême chose que le mariage ?

Le concept des « fiançailles » nousdonne une piste pour répondre à cettequestion. Comme je l’ai déjà mentionné,les pratiques du mariage chrétienétaient fortement influencées par la tra-dition juive et romaine. Le concept desfiançailles en est un avec lequel beau-coup de chrétiens sont familiers en rai-son de son lien avec la relation entreMarie et Joseph. Au moment où Marieest tombée enceinte de Jésus, elle étaitfiancée et non mariée à Joseph.Rappelez-vous que Jésus a été accuséd’être un enfant illégitime.

« Voici dans quelles circonstancesJésus-Christ vint au monde : Marie, samère, était liée par fiançailles à Joseph ;or elle se trouva enceinte par l’action duSaint-Esprit, avant qu’ils n’aient vécuensemble » (Matthieu 1.18).

Le concept des fiançailles ressemblaitau concept moderne que nous en avonsaujourd’hui. C’était un engagement offi-ciel où un couple promettait de semarier. Les fiancés s’engageaient l’unenvers l’autre, mais ils n’étaient pasmariés. Depuis 2000 ans, l’histoire del’Église montre qu’au milieu du premiermillénaire, le concept des fiançaillesétait très pertinent socialement. Le papeBenoît I (573-577), en écrivant aupatriarche de Gran, affirme que c’estl’acte sexuel dans le contexte du maria-ge qui fait que deux personnes devien-nent une seule chair et que lesfiançailles ne les lient pas si un des par-tis choisit de partir. L’exemple de Josephet Marie et l’histoire de l’Église sont despoints importants parce qu’ils indiquentque, même si les fiançailles étaient unengagement officiel à se marier, l’actesexuel intime n’était pas accepté danscette relation.

Après cette réflexion, je crois que noustouchons la véritable question de l’unionlibre que les chrétiens doivent aborder :les relations sexuelles hors mariage.

Des raisons communes citées en faveurde l’union libre comprennent les avan-tages financiers de partager lesdépenses, l’occasion de connaître ce àquoi pourrait ressembler être marié àquelqu’un, et la possibilité d’avoir uneintimité sexuelle régulière. C’est ce der-nier point auquel les chrétiens doiventfaire face : l’idée qu’un couple vive unerelation sérieuse en étant actif sexuelle-ment est acceptée par un large pour-centage de la population canadienne(moins de 16 % des Canadiens ne sontpas en faveur des relations sexuellesavant le mariage), ainsi que par beau-coup de chrétiens.

Une étude menée auprès de chrétiens« nés de nouveau » qui a fait une dis-tinction entre les évangéliques tradition-nels et les non traditionnels, révèle que26 % des évangéliques traditionnels(ceux qui étaient plus actifs dans leurÉglise et qui estiment davantagel’autorité de l’Écriture) ne voient rien demal avec des relations sexuelles avantle mariage, comparé à 46 % pour lesnon traditionnels. Je ne vois nullementcomment l’Écriture accepte l’expressionsexuelle en dehors d’un mariage hétéro-sexuel.

J’ai célébré de nombreux mariages et,au cours de la cérémonie, la phrase quime frappe le plus est celle-ci : Le maria-ge est une institution prescrite par Dieu.Même si le mariage a pris bien desformes au cours de l’histoire del’humanité, même dans sa forme sécu-lière, il a toujours été différencié desrelations passagères, aussi bien quepréconjugales.

J’estime que l’Église devrait toujoursêtre en faveur du mariage, et celaimplique instruire nos jeunes adultes surla sainteté du mariage. Nous devons lesaider à ne pas se contenter des imita-tions et des raccourcis qui non seule-

ment sont loin du concept original, maisqui peuvent également les empêcher devivre la pleine satisfaction d’un mariagefutur.

Nous devons également reconnaîtreque nous vivons dans un monde briséavec des gens déchus. Puisque nousfaisons déjà face à des questions dedivorce dans l’Église, même si Dieu enest attristé, nous ne devons pas répu-gner à faire face aux couples qui viventen union libre et qui cherchent à menerune vie qui glorifie Dieu. Le mariage estle plan de Dieu, et les couples engagésdoivent avancer vers ce plan et recon-naître la stérilité de leur union libre. Il n’ya pas de terrain neutre.

Le processus pour aider un couple quivit ensemble sans être marié exigegrâce et soutien, et non jugement etcondamnation. L’union libre n’est pas lenouveau mariage et elle n’est pas lamême chose que le mariage. C’est unmessage que nous devons communi-quer.

Pour plus d’information, vous pouvezvisiter deux très bons sites Internet et unarticle. Ils ne sont pas chrétiens, mais ilsfournissent au lecteur quelques rensei-gnements récents sur l’union libre.

The National Marriage Project (anglais)http://marriage.rutgers.edu/

Institut Vanier de la famillehttp://www.vifamily.ca/library/cft/unionlibre.html (bilingue)

Article : Accepteriez-vous de vivre enunion libre ? de Anne Milanhttp://www.statcan.gc.ca/kits-trouss-es/pdf/social/edu04_0156a-fra.pdf(français)

ÉDITORIAL

NL

1 0 N O R T H E R N L I G H T

here is a phrase that is rich withmeaning found in the writings ofthe Apostle Peter. With regardto the relationship between ahusband and wife, he says tohusbands that they should treat

their wives with consideration andrespect as they are “heirs with youof the gracious gift of life” (1 Peter3:7). Hopefully, we can take thetime to think through what Godhas inspired Peter to tell us.

As we know, at the very begin-ning, God designed humanity intotwo sexes—male and female.Both are made in his image, andboth have the same spiritual valueand potential. However, there aredistinctions between the sexesthat are the handiwork of God.

For many people, finding a part-ner of the opposite sex with whomto share a very special and inti-mate life-long bond is the bestway to experience life and handleits many challenges and joys. Thisunion is marriage, and is a human rela-tionship but one of divine origin. InGenesis, this bonding into marriage isdescribed this way: “For this reason, aman will leave his father and mother andbe united to his wife, and they willbecome one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).

The phrase “one flesh” is descriptive ofgenuine unity between a husband andwife. It indicates that two individualshave formed a strong bond betweenthem, where they have learned to mutu-ally submit to one another, and look outfor the best interests of one another.Further, it defines a strong unity of val-ues and purpose—where both arepulling together for common purposesand goals. Ultimately, these commonpurposes and goals lead to, as Peterstates, being “heirs…of the gracious giftof life” —heirs together of the gift of lifethat God has given to each one of us.

How do men and women—husbandsand wives—nurture that unity? How do

they make sure that in spite of the pres-sures and pulls of this life, they treat oneanother with love and respect? How dothey stay united and focused on thatwhich they both see as important?

One of the most critical keys to buildingand sustaining a strong marriage is alsoa key to any human relationship. It is theinvestment of time into the relationship.This means that one must not get sobusy making a living, or looking afterchildren, or doing things with friends andpursuing other interests that one’s mateis neglected. Put more simply men, itmeans taking the time to do things withyour wives. Do you—men and women—date your mate? Do you take personaltime with one another? Do you nurtureyour relationship together?

Next to our relationship with our TriuneGod, our relationship with our spouseshould be of highest priority. The capac-ity to provide a safe, loving and happyhome for our children is directly relatedto the strength of our marital bond. It hasbeen said that marriage and the familyare the stable building blocks of anysociety. The health of nations and peo-ples are directly related to the health ofour homes.

When couples are first dating, and are inthe first stages of romance, they delightin spending time together. Hours fly by,and the conversation flows easily. It is awonderful stage of life, and serves tohelp build a foundation for building a

solid, life-long marriage.

However, as in any relationship,it can be all too easy to take oneanother for granted. The veryreal pressures of making adecent living in our competitiveand pressured economy, and ofcaring for the physical and emo-tional needs of children, can taketheir toll. It is only the intentionalinvestment of time and effort(and even a bit of money fromtime to time) that can help coun-terbalance these pressures andkeep the relationship betweenhusband and wife strong. Suchan investment is essential to nur-turing that vital bond of marriage,and will pay huge dividends tohusbands and wives, their chil-dren, and all those around them.

As this issue is dedicated to the impor-tance and value of marriage, let’s deter-mine to invest the time to nurture thatprecious bond we have with our mate.Don’t let the dating stop just becauseyou are married! Never take yourspouse for granted, and never stopinvesting yourself in that relationship.

Remember, as the Apostle Paul tells usin Ephesians, that Christian marriage ismeant to be a reflection of the awe-somely deep commitment Jesus Christhas for the church. Let Jesus’ love flowthrough you to your mate, and may ourmarriages be a reflection of the fargreater love that God has for us all.

D I R E C T O R ’ S D E S K

By Gary MooreNational Director Sharing The Gift Of Life

TT

NL

1 1J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y / M A R C H 2 0 0 9

ans les épîtres de l’apôtrePierre se trouve une phraseriche de sens. En ce quiconcerne la relation entre mariet femme, il écrit aux maris detraiter leur femme avec hon-

neur « comme devant aussi hériter avecvous de la grâce de la vie » (1 Pierre 3.7,version Louis Segond). Avec bon espoir,nous pouvons prendre le tempsd’examiner ce que Dieu a inspiré àPierre d’écrire.

Comme nous le savons, au tout début,Dieu a créé l’humanité en deux sexes :l’homme et la femme. Les deux ont étécréés à l’image de Dieu, et les deux ontla même valeur et les mêmes pro-messes spirituelles. Cependant, il existedes différences entre les sexes qui sontl’œuvre de Dieu.

Pour beaucoup de gens, trouver un par-tenaire du sexe opposé avec qui parta-ger un lien très spécial et intime de touteune vie est la meilleure manière de vivreune vie heureuse et de faire face à sesnombreuses difficultés. Ce lien est lemariage : une relation humaine, maisd’origine divine. Dans la Genèse, lemariage est ainsi décrit : « C’est pour-quoi l’homme quittera son père et samère, et s’attachera à sa femme, et ilsdeviendront une seule chair » (Ge 2.24,Louis Segond).

L’expression « une seule chair » décritune unité authentique entre un mari etsa femme. Elle indique que deux per-sonnes ont établi une union étroite entreeux, où ils apprennent à se soumettrel’un à l’autre et à rechercher le bien del’autre. De plus, elle définit une fermeunité de valeurs où les deux travaillentensemble vers des objectifs et des butscommuns. Finalement, ces objectifs etbuts communs mènent les femmes,comme Pierre l’écrit, à devoir « hériteravec nous [les maris] de la grâce de lavie » que Dieu a donnée à chacun deses enfants.

Comment les époux – homme et femme– nourrissent-ils leur union ? Comment

s’assurent-ils, malgré les pressions etles épreuves de la vie, de se traitermutuellement avec amour et respect ?Comment restent-ils unis et centrés surce qu’ils considèrent tous les deuximportant ?

Une des clés les plus cruciales pourconsolider un mariage est aussi une clépour toute relation humaine : c’estl’investissement de temps dans la rela-tion. Cela veut dire qu’une personne nedoit pas être tellement occupée àgagner sa vie, ou à prendre soin desenfants, ou à sortir avec des amis ou àpoursuivre d’autres intérêts, qu’ellenéglige son conjoint. Autrement dit,vous, les hommes, devez prendre letemps de faire des choses avec votrefemme. Maris et femmes, sortez-vousavec votre conjoint ? Prenez-vous dutemps pour être ensemble ? Nourrissez-vous votre relation ?

À part notre relation avec notre Dieu tri-nitaire, notre relation avec notre conjointdevrait être notre priorité. Notre capacitéà fournir un foyer sûr, aimant et heureuxà nos enfants dépend directement de lasolidité de notre union conjugale. On ditque le mariage et la famille sont le fon-dement de toutes sociétés. La santé desnations et des gens est directement liéeà la santé de nos foyers.

Au début des fréquentations, quand lescouples en sont aux premières étapesdu romantisme, ils prennent plaisir àpasser du temps ensemble. Les heuresfilent et la conversation vient facilement.Cette merveilleuse étape de la viecontribue à établir un fondement pourbâtir un mariage solide et durable.

Cependant, comme dans n’importequelle relation, il peut être bien trop faci-le de tenir l’autre pour acquis. Les pres-sions réelles de gagner convenablementsa vie dans un système économiquecompétitif et stressant et de prendre soindes besoins physiques et émotionnelsdes enfants peuvent saper nos éner-gies. Seulement un investissementintentionnel de temps et d’efforts (et

même un peu d’argent de temps à autre)peut aider à contrebalancer ces pres-sions et à solidifier la relation entre unmari et sa femme. Un tel investissementest essentiel pour nourrir ce lien vital dumariage et produira d’énormes divi-dendes aux époux, à leurs enfants et àtout leur entourage.

Comme ce numéro de Northern Lightest consacré à l’importance et à lavaleur du mariage, prenons la décisiond’investir du temps pour nourrir ce lienprécieux que nous avons avec notreconjoint. Ne mettons pas de côté leromantisme simplement parce que noussommes mariés ! Ne tenons jamaisnotre conjoint pour acquis, et ne ces-sons jamais de nous investir dans cetterelation.

Rappelons-nous, comme l’apôtre Paull’a écrit aux Éphésiens, que le mariagechrétien doit être un reflet del’engagement très profond de Jésus-Christ envers l’Église. Laissons l’amourde Jésus se manifester dans notre rela-tion avec notre conjoint, et que notremariage soit un reflet du très grandamour que Dieu a pour nous tous.NL

CHRONIQUE

de Gary Mooredirecteur national Partager le don de la vie

DD


ut with the old and in withthe new” is a sayingoften shouted as theNew Year is welcomed. Iam thankful this does notapply in most areas of

our lives. I have been working in aSeniors Retirement Home for the last 18months and I think we would all agreethat we certainly don’t want to get rid ofeverything old. We like to start a newyear with a clean slate, to change, withplans to rid ourselves of old harmfulhabits and establish new, healthier ones.This isn’t easy, but thankfully in God’splan it is possible each time we repentand accept forgiveness from ourSaviour.

We live in a society where so much isdisposable—dishes, diapers and clothesto name a few things. Even many of ourappliances, cars and homes break downmuch quicker than in the old days.Almost nothing is made to last.Unfortunately that can include our mar-riages.

Marriage is created by God and is some-thing God intended to last for the lifetimeof the couple. “Until death do us part” isa phrase often repeated in many wed-ding ceremonies but it is also often diffi-cult to accomplish. For some the thoughtgoing into a marriage is, “Well if it does-n’t work out I can always get a divorce.”

We all know these sad truths but I wouldlike to concentrate on the wonderfulthings I have seen in both old and newmarriages.

In Caleb Manor, the seniors residence Iwork in, we have 7 people over 90 yearsof age. Our oldest resident is 96 and sheis still doing amazingly well. (The aver-age age here is about 87 so I feel posi-tively young!)

I have been able to observe both old andnew marriages while working. One ofour couples will celebrate their 70thwedding anniversary in July of thisyear—it is certainly an amazing exampleof commitment! We have a number ofcouples with marriages well into the 60s.

It is a joy to see them holding hands andhelping each other as they come tomeals in the dinning room.

All of them say it hasn’t always beeneasy, but the power of love and commit-ment carried them through. On a dailybasis I see young couples—grandchil-dren and great-grandchildren of the res-idents—coming in to visit. They also giveme inspiration and delight as I observethem interacting with each other andtheir children.

Marriages are changing in our new gen-eration. It isn’t easy for new coupleseither as they face very different chal-lenges than their grandparents andgreat-grandparents. With love, commit-ment, and a heart willing to make adjust-ments, and maybe even change somelong-held opinions, they too can suc-ceed.

I have observed many who are well onthe road and “kudos” to them. One suchexample is the grandchild of one of ourresidents. He and his wife both have

“O“O“Out With The Old, In With The New”

By Dorothy NordstromCanadian Women’s MinistryCoordinator

W O M E N ’ S M I N I S T R Y


Our son took the last three months ofmaternity leave with our precious grand-daughter Molly. Our son-in-law also tooktime off work and looked after our grand-daughter Joy so that our daughter couldget the extra hours she needed to havea full year’s maternity leave with bothher children. This can be a beautiful timeof bonding and can also be very helpfulfor couples in our changing economictimes.

I am proud of our younger generation.Times have changed and couples arecoming to terms with it in wonderfulways.

Change is a constant part of our humancondition. Weathering the storms ofchange in our lives is something everymarriage will face, whether an old or anew one. Even good change can bestressful; such as a new job or a moveand of course a new baby. Ageing canbring about difficult change also, such asloss of hearing, eye sight, mobility, andhardest of all, failing health.

The good news is both old and youngmarriages can survive with God’s help.Unfortunately, some do fail, that is thenature of our humanity. Take heart; withlove, forgiveness and a heart committedto each other, we will all stand togetherrejoicing at the great wedding feast, themarriage of the Lamb and his bride.

“Let us rejoice and be glad and give himglory! For the wedding of the Lamb hascome, and his bride has made herselfready.” “Then the angel said to me,Write: Blessed are those who are invitedto the wedding supper of the Lamb!”(Revelation 19:7, 9 NIV).

Praise be to our God when our humancondition is finished and we are in theone marriage which will last forever.

careers outside the home, but havemade arrangements to each work fewerdays and longer hours so that one ofthem is always caring for their daughter.One day Michael came to have lunchwith his grandmother, bringing littleSadie with him. She is 11 months oldand they come to visit great-grandmoth-er often. Michael is very competent withSadie; he prepares her food, feeds andchanges her as quickly and easily as hermother. When great-grandmotherproudly introduced them both to me shesaid, “This is my grandson Michael andhe is babysitting my great granddaugh-ter Sadie.” Michael replied gently with asmile on his face, “No grandma, I’m par-enting Sadie, not babysitting.”

This is a beautiful way to explain it.Many young men today are taking amore active role in the parenting ofbabies; they are “hands-on daddies.” Ifind great joy in watching them with theirlittle ones. Some daddies are now shar-ing maternity leave with their wives.

NL

W O M E N ’ S M I N I S T R Y C O N T I N U E D


Seaweed wrapped around his head andneck, its slimy hands pulling him deeper.He clawed at the retreating surface, butit was farther than a dream, and he wasgrowing colder. He was choking andcoughing, shivering and throbbing.

Jonah was drowning. “Lord…”Something swam above him, its darkshadow eclipsing the sun. “God,please…”

The shadow doubled back, its jawsworking slowly. The giant mouthgaped. Jonah’s eyes grew wide, anda rush of noise pummelled his ears.Then, silence and darkness.

He awoke, surprised to be waking atall, especially to the sharp tang offish. He tried to stand, and felt theitch of stomach acid against his skin.An intake of krill, some still swim-ming, drifted past his elbows.

“I’m in a fish.” He had to say it aloudto make it real.

Jonah stared up at the fish’s stom-ach, as if he could see past it, past allthe waters above him and into theheavens. “You have saved me Lord.”

Much time passed before Jonah felta shift in the great stomach. A minia-ture tidal wave knocked him back-wards, and bubbles popped aroundhis knees. The shallow water swirledas the Lord commanded the fish, andit vomited Jonah onto dry land.

The sand was warm against his face. Itwas a few moments before Jonah con-vinced his limbs to move, but when hestood, shading his eyes against the sun,he saw soldiers marching. The gold Lionon their standard spoke of their origin—Nineveh.

He would join them.

Slowly, Jonah began to walk. Every stepbringing him closer to the city he hated,and the Lord, as with all people, loved.

ick me up and throw mein the sea, and it willbecome calm. I knowthat it is my fault that thisgreat storm has comeupon you.”

The captain stared at the young manstanding a few paces away. As he did, aswell pitched the ship sideways, sendingboth men scrambling for their footing onthe slick boards. When the captain hadrighted himself he was shaking hishead, rainwater sluicing down hisshoulders, “No. Sailors! Break outthose oars! We’ll row back toshore!”

The young man frowned, “It’s nouse…”

“I’ve heard your story, Jonah,” thecaptain shouted over the roar of thewind. “You ran away from yourHebrew Lord. Well, whoever’s upthere,” he jerked his thumb towardsthe heavens, “hasn’t got the best ofus yet. We’ll make it back to port.”

Jonah didn’t meet the captain’sgaze. For all his bluster, Jonahcould hear the tremor of fear in hisvoice.

Another wave raked the bow.Somewhere wood splintered. Waterfell more freely from the sky, untilJonah felt he was drowning as hegripped the foremast. Fear and guilttore at the young man’s heart, butevery time his thoughts turned toNineveh, the city he should be preachingto, not running away from, his fear dou-bled.

Hands grabbed his tunic. For a momentJonah gripped the mast tighter. Then hesaw the captain. He was speaking, butnot to Jonah, and through the storm theyoung man caught snatches of hiswords, “O Lord... not let us die for tak-ing... man’s life… for you… Lord, havedone as you pleased.”

Sailors’ rough hands jostled him forward.The sky was dark from the storm, andJonah could only see glimpses of wavesas he was marched towards the ship’srail. They were going to toss him over.He was going to drown.

Panic bubbled up from his stomach,swamping his resolution. Who cared ifthe sailors died in the storm? Jonah wasgoing to drown. He clawed away fromthe edge, but it was too late. Already

they were pushing him. He was falling.Then the water closed over Jonah’shead.

A small chain of bubbles streamed fromhis mouth at the shock of the icy water.He struggled weakly, the cold numbinghis senses. Incredibly, the surface hadgrown calm, glittering like a sapphirecaught in sunlight. A moment’s peacedescended, and Jonah let his musclesgo limp.

Then his lungs began to burn—a throb-bing pain that could not be ignored.

“P“P

Y O U T H C O R N E R

By Kelly AndersonYouth Member, Cornerstone Christian Fellowship,Toronto, ON

The Prophet Who Ran Away

NL

© Kelly Anderson


ve performed many weddingsusing the following ceremony,which I wrote originally for mydaughter and her husband sev-eral years ago. Before eachwedding, I’ve asked the couple

getting married to read through the cer-emony and if they see anything theythink could be improved or adjusted, tolet me know. As a result, the ceremonynow contains the unique touch of manycouples.

I think it’s a lovely ceremony because itmoves with the culture but never straysfrom the bedrock reasons for marriage.

Here it is:

“Marriage is amazing. It’s the mostancient and revered tradition known tohumanity, a wonderful institution thathas survived and flourished through thecenturies, providing enormoushappiness and fulfillment for billions ofus humans. And even in its ratherbattered state today, marriage stillattracts millions of couples, eagerlyseeking the treasures it contains.

“So, what is it about marriage thatmakes it so appealing? Simply put, it isthe freedom that comes from knowingyou are loved—and will always be loved,despite all your obvious imperfections—for nothing more than being you. Wecrave that love as children from ourparents, we search for it as teenagersfrom our friends, but in marriage we findit at its best in this one incredible personwho willingly and publicly declares thathe, or she, will love you and cherish youfor the rest of your lives together.

“And what more could we want in thishuman existence of ours? At the veryroots of our being, this is what we werecreated for—to give and receive love—believing love can tackle and overcomeevery obstacle, every mistake and everydisagreement. And the overwhelmingevidence that this is true—that such alove really exists—can be seen in allthose marriages that survive and even

flourish in the most trying ofcircumstances.

“Such an incredibly successful designsurely tells of a brilliant designer, withsomething wonderful and inspiring inmind. But what is it? Well, the Bible tellsus that marriage was God’s idea, and Hedesigned it for one very basic andsimple purpose—to help us humansexperience the kind of love He madepossible, and the amazing sense offreedom His love creates.

“That’s why love is so important. It opensthe door to a freedom you may not havebelieved possible, like the freedom to beutterly real, totally transparent and evenvulnerable with each other—without anyfear or embarassment whatsoever. It isfor this kind of freedom that marriagewas created—where there are nodemands, no expectations, no guilt-trips—just the overwhelming sense ofrelief and peace of mind that you areloved, no matter what.

“That’s what marriage offers, and to helpyou experience it to the full, God will giveyou all the support you need. If you everwant to know if God is real and that Hereally cares for you, just ask Him for thelove that’ll keep your marriage togetherand watch what happens!

“And what kind of love does God haveon offer? It’s the kind of practical,enduring love that will keep yourrelationship intact and your friendshipgrowing, because it’s love that’s patientand kind; it doesn’t bear grudges orremember wrongs; it isn’t sarcastic,arrogant or accusing; it doesn’t getjealous or short-tempered—it’s love that

forgives, trusts and perseveres throughthick and thin. That’s the love Godoffers—and it’s there for the asking at amoment’s notice for both of you—toenable you to grow closer, not furtherapart, as time goes by.

“Hopefully, then, it dawns on you atsome point in your happily marriedlives—as this one dear person keepsyour need to be loved constantlyfulfilled—that this is life at its best, andthe way life is meant to be. So, on behalf

of God can I pass on His thanks andcongratulations to you both for being sowilling to experience what He wants foryou? And all it takes from now on is this:that you will be faithful to each other,come what may—just as God is foreverfaithful to you.”

An exchange of vows then follows,followed by a prayer by me and then thefamiliar exchange of rings, kiss, signingforms, publicly announcing the coupleas officially married and off they go forcongratulations all round.

Many people have asked me afterwardswhere I got the ceremony from. I tellthem it came from thinking about mydaughter and the people she would haveat her wedding. They were like her,young and turned off religion, but opento the magic of marriage. It was thatmagic I wanted to capture, for theirsakes, because marriage still can beamazing.NL

I ’I ’By Jonathan BuckPastor, Barrie, Huntsville,

North Bay, Peterborough, andSudbury congregationswww.bucktobasics.ca

A Wedding Ceremony For Today

“And what more could we want in this human existence ofours? At the very roots of our being, this is what we werecreated for—to give and receive love—believing love cantackle and overcome every obstacle, every mistake andevery disagreement....”

T H E M E

N O R T H E R N L I G H T 1 6

ave you ever thought that theintensely hard-driving Paul ofTarsus was a writer who need-ed to clarify his more contro-versial statements?

Most Bible readers know atleast a few of them. In our day 1Corinthians 14:34 and especially 1Timothy 2:12 perhaps lead the list: “I donot permit a woman to teach or to haveauthority over a man; she must besilent.” It goes further. “For Adam wasnot the one deceived; it was the woman”(1 Timothy 2:12, 14).

“Ouch!” react many in the women’smovement…and beyond. Perhaps theclassic text that brands Paul a misogy-nist (a man who dislikes women) in theeyes of posterity is Ephesians 5:22-24.You’ll remember that one. It has a lot todo with our theme issue this time, mar-riage: “Wives, submit to your own hus-bands, as to the Lord. For the husbandis head of the wife, as also Christ is headof the church…so let the wives be totheir own husbands in everything.”

A Second Look

You have to wonder how Paul wouldexplain some of these statements on anearly morning talk show, or “The View,”or “Oprah.” You have to wonder if theman who pleaded that Christians be “allthings to all men” might not demandequal time for some special pleadinghimself.

This article attempts to do that. It asks:How might Paul seek to answer his crit-ics across the centuries, many of whom,incidentally come from within theChristian church. Even worse, the state-ments in the marriage passages haveallowed many men—who really aremisogynists—to hold women back, toemotionally and spiritually stifle theirwives and much worse, unfortunately.This is not an issue of “academic theolo-gy” after all. As an overly strict conserv-ative church in the past, we in theWorldwide Church of God made our

mistakes in this direction. Many of usknow this. But…how might Paul answerhis critics?

‘Dear Ladies…’

He might begin by setting a wide-anglecontext. “Dear Ladies, please rememberthat most of the letters I wrote were cri-sis-oriented. I was trying to set thingsright in some of my new churches—things that were getting out of hand.”

HH

T H E M E C O N T I N U E D

This is important to keep in mind. Anyletter writer who uses such phrases as“let him be accursed,” “O foolishGalatians,” “shall I come to you with arod,” “note that man,” etc., is obviouslyworking under pressure. Under pressurewe all say things that need to be round-ed out later, or set beside other, less vis-ceral statements. The Apostle Paul wasa man whose life often stood in jeopardyevery hour, who faced “perils of waters,perils of robbers, perils in the city, perils

in the wilderness, per-ils in the sea” (2Corinthians 11:26).

Few of Paul’s criticswould want Paul’sschedule.

His letters were notdictated in the air-conditioned comfortof a huge office withstaff membersbustling around as hesipped on a café lattewriting “Be brave,brethren, be strong.”Not at all. Repeatedlyand repeatedly, Paulrisked his life for theGospel, and he wellknew that pen and inkwas not as good asface to face (ICorinthians 4:19).

In reading writtendocuments, context iseverything. It is vital toremember that Paul’sinstructions aboutwomen preachers

“Dear Ladies: WhatBy Neil EarlePastor, Glendora, California congregation

Any letter writer who uses such phrases as “let him beaccursed,” “O foolish Galatians,” “shall I come to you with arod,” “note that man,” etc., is obviously working under pres-sure. Under pressure we all say things that need to be round-ed out later, or set beside other, less visceral statements.


were given in letters filled with warningsabout “deceiving spirits, doctrines ofdemons,” saints shipwrecking their spiri-tual life, and other pesky rogues preach-ing nonsensical fables (I Timothy 4:1).

Literary scholars know this: the writergets the benefit of the doubt, not the crit-ic. Quite often Paul was living in a spiri-tual war zone (Ephesians 6:12). In fact,he wasn’t even what we today would calla “systematic theologian.” He often wentat things “on the fly,” to use a hockeyanalogy.

Actions Speak Louder

One other factor is to see how Paul con-ducted his life. Here the old proverb“actions speak louder than words” reallyapplies. Paul was a man who had a giftfor friendship. That included lots and lotsof women. Outstanding women leadersincluded:

1. Noble and affluent business womensuch as Lydia (Acts 16:14).

2. The gifted, well-traveled teacherPriscilla, who shared a business with herhusband (Acts 18:2-3).

3. Then there was Chloe, a Christianwoman who braved the criticism and“flack” of the Corinthian brethren bytelling Paul what was really going on (1Corinthians 1:11).

4. Phoebe, the trusted deaconess fromCenchrea, was probably the lady whocarried the all-important Romans letterto the capital of the empire. Paul told theRoman Christians to “assist her in what-ever business she has need of you”(Romans 16:1-2).

5. Paul had no problems staying in thehouse of Phillip the evangelist who had“four virgin daughters who prophesied”(Acts 21:8-9). Paul had earlier writtenthat women were quite free to pray andprophesy, the last a word that runs thegamut of meanings from prayer tosinging to preaching (1 Corinthians11:5).

6. Most impressive of all is Paul’s list ofmale and female helpers in Romans16:3-16. Of 26 people mentioned, atleast nine are women. And who leadsthe list? Priscilla. A woman Paul hadhigh regard for. William Barclay is right:There are clearly-drawn saints we knowonly through the pen of Paul the inveter-ate letter-writer.

7. Let’s not forget Lois and Eunice, thegrandmother and mother of his bestman, Timothy (2 Timothy 1:5).

Culture Matters

How’s that to set against “Paul themisogynist?” But what of his seeminglyblanket condemnation of womenpreachers in 1 Timothy 2 and 1Corinthians 14?

The discussion here has turned into asmall growth industry. Some argue thatother statements in 1 Timothy, e.g., arenot meant to be absolute commands forthe church for all times. For example,very few churches today follow Paul’srules in 1 Timothy 5:9. Here he coun-seled Timothy to forbid help to anywidow under the age of sixty. Fewchurches consider this binding today. Itis clear from the context that churchassistance was being abused in theEphesus church (1 Timothy 1:3).

Similarly, even conservative theologiansof an older generation such as C.K.Barrett and Donald Guthrie both arguethe point that women “newly emancipat-ed through faith in Christ, had begun todominate men and were in danger ofbringing the church into disrepute” (NewBible Commentary, page 1298).

This is an interesting position. But tomention Ephesus perhaps pinpointsanother reason why Paul felt the need torestrain women from prominent teachingroles in that congregation. Ephesus wasa city renowned in the ancient world forthe worship of the goddess Diana,served by over 1000 officially licensedtemple prostitutes (Acts 19:24-27).

Many historians feel that the presence ofwomen in prominent roles in theEphesian church could have been tragi-

cally misunderstood by potential con-verts among both Jews and Gentiles.“Why, they’re just like the pagans theycondemn,” some might have concludedand Paul was typically sensitive to out-side opinion (1 Corinthians 14:23).

Other scholars direct Paul’s readers topassages closer at hand that could beeasily misunderstood, for example, heseems to be condemning elegant dressand jewelry in 1 Timothy 2:9. In othertexts he is clearly not so puritanical (1Corinthians 11:15). For example, in 1Corinthians 3:12 Paul uses preciousstones to symbolize godliness.

‘Men, Keep Silent!’

In 1 Corinthians 14:28-30 Paul indicatesthere are even certain circumstances inwhich even men were to keep silent, e.g.a teacher speaking in a foreign languagewithout an interpreter present. Matters ofcircumstance and local custom oftenentered into Paul’s rulings for his con-gregations. And in 1 Corinthians 14:35there is the built-in assumption that allwomen in the church have husbands.The issues are complex. There may betruth in all these explanations. For a

t I Meant To Say...”T H E M E C O N T I N U E D

One other factor is to see how Paul conducted his life. Herethe old proverb “actions speak louder than words” reallyapplies. Paul was a man who had a gift for friendship. Thatincluded lots and lots of women.


much deeper overview of these pas-sages consult our web site athttp://www.wcg.org/lit.

Some of Paul’s apparent stricturesagainst women can be seen as a matterof regulating worship activities for con-gregations trying to function in a varietyof cultural settings—such as Christianwomen needing to set a more modestexample in “anything goes” Ephesusand Corinth.

But what of Ephesians 5:24 andChristian marriage covenants? Somenow omit these words from certain wed-ding ceremonies, especially the com-mand for women to submit to men ineverything.

Intelligent Submission

Paul’s statement about women’s role inmarriage in Ephesians 5:22-24 has a

ready-made qualifier built into it. Thehusband as the woman’s head is viewedthrough the lens of Christ’s leadership ofthe church. Now here is a high standardindeed with which to gauge husbandlyleadership. In Paul’s prescription forhusbands which immediately follows, heeven “ups the ante” further. Husbandsare to love their wives just as Christloves the church.

This means that male leadership in mar-riage is to be based on Christ-like sacri-ficial love. This is the diametric oppositeof lustful proprietorship, criminal neglectand physical or emotional abuse. AsPaul writes so eloquently: Jesus gavehis “all” for the church.

This is how men are to love theirwives.

Seen from this perspective, Paul’s coun-sel to the New Testament church is

aimed—if that is the right word—muchmore at the husband than it is the wife!Note that his instructions to the Christianhusband occupy almost nine verses inEphesians 5:22-33 as against three anda half verses for the wife.

How ironic! Paul’s use of such words as“nourish” and “cherish” to describe ideal,God-centered, sacrificial husbandly lovetowards the wife is perhaps the greatestNew Testament tribute to Paul’s highregard for Christian women. He knewand surrounded himself with so manycapable women, indispensible co-work-ers in laying the groundwork for the NewTestament church.

“Dear Ladies,” Paul could be saying,“this is what I really meant to say. ReadEphesians 5 again, more carefullyplease.” It’s not hard to imagine Priscilla,Lydia, Lois, Eunice and a host of Paul’swomen friends smiling in agreement.


NL


o understand the biblical teach-ing on divorce and remarriage,we should begin with anoverview of marriage. God insti-tuted marriage, we are told inGenesis 2:18, when he made a

wife for Adam. He instructed that a manought to leave the guardianship of hisparents and cleave to his wife andbecome one flesh with her (Genesis2:24). Of course, the wife should do thesame. The married man and womanwere then to start a new family.

God’s will is for marriage to last for life—with each partner loving, honoring, car-ing for and cleaving to the other— justas Christ loves and cares for his church(Ephesians 5:22-33). The Bible teachesthe sacredness of marital vows. “I hatedivorce,” the prophet says, speakingGod’s words (Malachi 2:16). Of course,God hates all sin, including hate, vio-lence and pride. In that sense, divorce isno different from any other sin, becauseit is sin that leads to divorce.

In an ideal world where human beingsfollowed God’s ways perfectly, madeperfect choices in choosing their mar-riage partner, understood what marriagewas and faithfully kept their vows, therewould be no need for divorce. But welive in an imperfect world beset byhuman weakness, unfaithfulness, irre-sponsibility, people marrying the wrongperson and for the wrong reasons—andall such things. People sin, and theymake mistakes when picking amate. Millions of people have beendivorced.

Divorce is a fact of life in human soci-ety. (Even God divorced his bride Israel,because she persistently strayed intosin—Jeremiah 3:8.) What does a persondo if he or she has been divorced? Mustthat person stay single and notmarry? The answer is no.

Divorce is like any other sinful action. Infact, the sin is really in those conditionsthat created a situation in which recon-ciliation seemed impossible and divorce

the only option. This informs us that weshould not focus on the divorce itself asif this were the only sin. Rather, weshould see divorce more as the finalconsequence of a string of sinful andmistaken behaviors that destroyed arelationship.

However, when a person repents and isconverted, all his or her past sins andmistakes are forgiven (Acts 2:38; Psalm103:1-3, 10-12). Any past sins that led tothe divorce and the divorce itself wouldbe included. The person would then befree to marry again. There is no sin inthe new marriage and the sin of a pastdivorce is not a continuing one.

What of those who are Christian believ-ers? Paul wrote about divorce andremarriage among Christians. He did soin the form of wise opinion based on bib-lical understanding regarding situationsthat are difficult and confused (1Corinthians 7:12). This is important toremember.

Paul stated that those who have beendivorced (“loosed”) from an unbelievingmate do not sin if they marry (verses27-28). Paul does not advocate divorcein 1 Corinthians 7—or anywhere else forthat matter! However, Paul does writethat in his view a believer who remarriesafter being “loosed” from an unbelievingmate does not sin (verses 27-28). Paulshows that two ways of being “loosed”are by the departure of an unbelievingmate or by the death of one of the part-ners (verse 39).

Paul admonished the church that a con-verted person should not leave ordivorce a mate who is pleased to contin-ue the marriage (verses 10-13). Those

who belong to Christ should obey him,not only in refraining from divorce butalso in using all their resources to builda truly loving relationship (Ephesians5:22-31; 1 Peter 3:1-7). Our earthly mar-riages ought to picture the great loverelationship between Christ and thechurch (Ephesians 5:32).

However, the reality of life is that con-verted people also sin and create situa-tions that lead to divorce. Or sometimesconverted people made mistakes inpicking a husband or wife. At othertimes, mates claim they want to remainmarried but abuse the marriage andtheir spouses. By their actions theydemonstrate a lack of love and faithful-

ness. The point is that divorce, while farfrom God’s intention or desire forhumans— especially among Christianbelievers—does sometimes happenbecause of the destruction of the mar-riage by a mate who acts like an unbe-liever.

As is true after any tragedy and disloca-tion of life, we must pick up the piecesand go on. For some divorced peoplethat will mean becoming marriedagain. Is it a sin if they remarry? Theanswer must be, no. True, it’s not whatGod intended from the beginning. (Hedidn’t intend for people to murder, stealor covet either. But they do.) True,divorce creates confusion—and so canremarriage. It can lead to children thatare “hers, his and ours.” But human lifeis that way because of our spiritually fall-en and sinful condition.

Having said all this in general aboutdivorce and remarriage, how do weunderstand Jesus’ words in Matthew5:32? There, Jesus said: “Anyone who


TTBy Paul KrollWhat About Divorce And

Remarriage?

In an ideal world where human beings followed God’s waysperfectly, made perfect choices in choosing their marriagepartner, understood what marriage was and faithfully kepttheir vows, there would be no need for divorce.


divorces his wife, except for maritalunfaithfulness, causes her to become anadulterous, and anyone who marries thedivorced woman commits adul-tery.” Obviously, we cannot apply Jesus’words in a literal manner because thenthe apostle Paul’s teaching in 1Corinthians 7 would contradict Jesus.

We also wouldn’t want to take literallymany of Jesus’ words in the other say-ings in this section. We wouldn’t, forexample, gouge out our right eye if welust when we see a woman (verse 29).

We should also be cautioned that noteverything Jesus commanded peopleare timeless laws. For example, duringhis earthly ministry Jesus told the disci-ples to preach only to “the lost sheep ofIsrael,” and not the Gentiles orSamaritans (Matthew 10:6; 15:24). Butafter his resurrection he told them to goto Samaria and the rest of the world(Acts 1:8). During his ministry Jesus toldpeople to offer the sacrifices specified inthe Mosaic Law (Matthew 8:4). But it’sclear that after his death and resurrec-tion—and the coming in of the newcovenant—such religious regulationsare not commanded. The book ofHebrews, for example, makes this clear.

This leads to a conclusion that we cansee Jesus’ teaching first in the context ofhis time and the people to whom he wastalking. We should also understand thatduring his life Jesus lived as a Jew with-in his culture and spoke to those whowere under the old covenant law.

We should note that Jesus was address-ing a male-dominated society so hespoke his words from a man’s point ofview about divorce. We don’t know howrampant divorce was in the Jewish soci-ety of Jesus’ time, but it must have beena problem of large proportions amongsome groups.

That’s why he had to address thedivorce issue in Matthew 19:3-12 aswell. Here Jesus, speaking to thePharisees, said that divorce was permis-

sible under the old covenant “becauseyour hearts were hard” (19:8). Jesusmade the point that this violated God’sreal purpose. “It was not this way fromthe beginning,” Jesus insisted (verse 8).

But it was legal and allowed. Jesus’strong words must be seen against thebackdrop of the way many Jews treatedwomen and marriage. William Barclaysays the following in his Daily StudyBible Series commentary on Matthew,page 151:

Ideally the Jew abhorred divorce. . . .Thetragedy was that the practice fell so farshort of the ideal. One thing vitiated thewhole marriage relationship. Thewoman in the eyes of the law was athing. She was at the absolute disposalof her father or of her husband. She hadvirtually no legal rights at all. To allintents and purposes a woman could notdivorce her husband for any reason, anda man could divorce his wife for anycause at all. “A woman,” said theRabbinic law, “may be divorced with orwithout her will; but a man only with hiswill”. . .

The process of divorce was extremelysimple. The bill of divorcement simplyran: “Let this be from me thy writ ofdivorce and letter of dismissal and deedof liberation, that thou mayest marrywhatsoever man thou wilt.” All that hadto be done was to hand that document tothe woman in the presence of two wit-nesses and she stood divorced.

Let us try to paraphrase the point Jesusmay have been making in Matthew 5:32in regard to such practices. He mayhave been saying: “You think all youhave to do is give a wife you want to getrid of a certificate, and that makes youractions legal even though they are total-ly unjust. You simply tell her she’s nolonger your wife and throw her out ofyour house. But I tell you there’s only

one legitimate reason you can divorceyour wife—that is, for marital infideli-ty. Otherwise, you are nothing but anadulterer and you are causing your wifeto be an adulteress.”

Jesus was speaking to Jewish men ofthe time who used the pretext of a “cer-tificate” to get rid of any wife they nolonger wanted. That was horribly unjust,and that is what he was concernedwith—the unjustness of it all. The sameapplies to Matthew 19:8-9—where thePharisees asked Jesus if the Jewishpractice of divorcing their wives for what-ever reason they concocted was accept-able to him (verse 3).

This is where a lengthy study of mar-riage and divorce among Jewish peoplein the time of Jesus by David Instone-Brewer may throw some light on theissue under consideration. He is seniorresearch fellow in rabbinics and the NewTestament at Tyndale House, inCambridge, MA.

We touched on Matthew 5:32 and 19:8-9 above, where Jesus said that the onlylawful cause for divorce was maritalunfaithfulness. However, in Luke 16:18Jesus provided no allowance fordivorce. Also, in 1 Corinthians 7:12-15,the apostle Paul allowed divorce for abeliever whose unbelieving spouse leftthe marriage, something Jesus did notmention. Clearly, either we have toaccept a blatant contradiction inScripture or consider that we are notcompletely understanding somethingabout when divorce may be allowable,scripturally speaking, from a literal read-ing of what Jesus said about this matter.

According to Instone-Brewer, we needto read Matthew 19:3 to see what ques-tion Jesus was answering in verses 8-9about divorce and remarriage. Here istheir question: “Some Pharisees cameto him [Jesus], and to test him they


Jesus’ strong words must be seen against the backdrop ofthe way many Jews treated women and marriage.


asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorcehis wife for any cause’” (New RevisedStandard Version, italics ours).

According to Instone-Brewer, theHillelite rabbis had invented a new formof divorce clause a few decades beforeJesus, that went by the formal statement“for any cause.” The Hillelite rabbis hadinvented this divorce clause from a sin-gle word in Deuteronomy 24:1. Theyargued that a man could divorce his wifefor any cause he came up with, no mat-ter how trivial. Not all rabbis agreed withthis position, but the “any cause” divorcehad become the popular excuse to get alegal divorce.

This is what the Pharisees were askingof Jesus: Was he in agreement with the“any clause” legal divorce certificate,that is, that a man could divorce his wifefor any reason he came up with. Jesusrejected this approach to divorce by cor-recting the Hillelite’s misinterpretation ofDeuteronomy 24:1. He was saying thatthis verse did not say a man coulddivorce his wife based on this concocted“any cause” stipulation. Rather, accord-ing to Jesus, the verse said a man coulddivorce his wife only for immorality,which was understood to be adultery.The only question Jesus is consideringis what does Deuteronomy 24:1 allowed;he was not commenting on what othercauses might be legitimate ones for adivorce.

Just because Jesus rejected the “anycause” divorce certificate, does notmean he rejected other grounds fordivorce, which were based on the OldTestament. Instone-Brewer points toExodus 21:10-11, which indicates that ahusband has a duty to provide for hiswife, and that neglect would break themarriage and allow for a divorce. Thismeant it was a legal, and thus, legitimatereason for a divorce, which in turn,allowed for remarriage. Here it is clearthat even a slave wife had three rightswithin marriage—food, clothing and“marital rights,” which last stipulationwas to be understood as love and emo-

tional support. If a wife, and hence aspouse of either gender, was not provid-ed with these rights in a marriage, theaggrieved mate had the right to seek adivorce, and thus would have been eligi-ble to remarry.

Marriage is therefore understood asunderpinned by a real contract. If thecontract is broken, the marriage canrightfully be made null and void, as canany contract.

Says Instone-Brewer, “These threerights became the basis of Jewish mar-riage vows… In later Jewish andChristian marriages, the languagebecame more formal, such as ‘love,honor, and keep.’ These vows, togetherwith a vow of sexual faithfulness, havealways been the basis for mar-riage. Thus, the vows we make when wemarry correspond directly to the biblicalgrounds for divorce.”[1]

Abuse in marriage was considered anextreme form of neglect, as was aban-donment. This is the legal cause fordivorce that the apostle Paul deals within 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. Instone-Brewerexplains that if we consider all these fac-tors together, we have “a clear and con-sistent set of rules for divorce andremarriage. Divorce is allowed for a lim-ited number of grounds that are found inthe Old Testament and affirmed in theNew Testament.”[2] These are: 1) adul-tery (Deut. 24:1; Matt. 19:3-9), 2) emo-tional and physical neglect (Ex. 21:10-11; 1 Cor. 7:10-11), 3) abandonment and

abuse (1 Cor 7). Any spouse sufferingfrom any of these broken vows hadgrounds for a divorce, after which thatperson was free to remarry.

So we come full circle to our mainpoint. The actions that lead to divorceviolate God’s purpose for human beingsto love and to be loved. So does everyother sin, including hate, coveting,killing, lying, stealing, greed—and soon. The fact of the matter is that humanbeings are less than perfect beings, andtragically can be unloving and unfaithfulin their conduct so that they break theirmarriage vows on a consistent basis,sometimes without remedy being possi-ble.

Divorce, then, becomes a possibility anda legal right in the real world.

Therefore, the church position on mar-riage, divorce and remarriage is the fol-lowing: The Worldwide Church of Godupholds the sanctity of marriage but alsorecognizes that humans have hardenedtheir hearts. The church discouragesdivorce, but in most cases permitsdivorced persons to remarry.

[1] David Instone-Brewer, “What GodHas Joined,” Christianity Today, October2007, p. 29. For a full exposition of histhesis, please see his book Divorce andRemarriage in the Bible: The Social andLiterary Context (William. B. EerdmansPublishing Company, June 2002).[2] Ibid., p.29.


So we come full circle to our main point. The actions that leadto divorce violate God’s purpose for human beings to love andto be loved. So does every other sin, including hate, coveting,killing, lying, stealing, greed—and so on. The fact of the mat-ter is that human beings are less than perfect beings, andtragically can be unloving and unfaithful in their conduct sothat they break their marriage vows on a consistent basis,sometimes without remedy being possible.

NL


t’s too bad so many people confusea marriage certificate with a proper-ty deed, or a vehicle title. Or evenworse, a driver’s license (i.e., if youknow what to do with the steeringwheel, if you’re able to find the

brake once in awhile, and if you under-stand the difference between “go”, “cau-tion” and “stop” you’re a great driver).We confuse privilege with entitlement:the house; the vehicle; the driver’slicense, belong to me, to do with as Iwish.

Not so. It is a privilege to own a house ora vehicle. If it were an entitlement,everybody would have one. The laws ofthe land frown on setting fire to your ownhouse. Pushing your vehicle into a deepriver will be investigated. Beware ofDUI’s—you could lose that license. Andit is really bad form to produce one’smarriage certificate as “proof of pur-chase”. It just isn’t done—or, is it?!(Again, “to do with as I wish.”)

Some marriages began with Christ inthem, but as the “I’s” and the “u’s”became larger and larger, “His” placebecame smaller and smaller. SoonJesus was shoved aside, unwanted;then, being the gentleman he is, he left.In other marriages, he wanted so muchto guide the couple to true happiness bybeing included, but was rudely kickedout. Then, in still others, he stood nearthe edge, but was never invited in.

Too many marriages have three “areas”:the “Peaceable Kingdom;” the “DMZ”(Demilitarized Zone); and then there’sthe “War Zone.”

“It’s just between the two of them. It’s adomestic quarrel.” Even the police don’tlike to get in the middle of that one. Butdomestic “quarrels” have caused manydeaths. They have caused trauma to thebody; to the mind; to the emotions. Andjust as important, they have shatteredand scattered the lives of millions ofinnocent children, who never asked tobe born. Marriage is a privilege—a cho-sen privilege. It is not an “entitlement”,

thus no one can “do” enoughfor you, that you “owe” your-self, to that person.

Physical violence in a homeis a horror story, there’s nodoubt, and scars can showfor the rest of one’s life. Butthe other kinds of abusearen’t considered becausethey are not visible: emotion-al; psychological; verbal;and even spiritual. There arejust as many scars on theemotions; on the minds —onthe spirits, of the walkingwounded. Isolation andemotional blackmail justbecome other “normal”forms of control. And we endup, thinking—with someoneelse’s mind.

But the worst part is,although this type of lifestyleis not “inherited” it becomesthe norm for children—theonly way to live, since that’sall they’ve ever known—andit can be perpetuated forgenerations. I’ve come tobelieve that “unto the thirdand fourth generation”(Exodus 20:5) is a “human-thing”— not a“God-thing.” By that I mean God doesn’tcause it. It is not a “punishment” hehands out arbitrarily for our mistakes.We do it to ourselves and to our pre-cious children with our vicious cycles ofabuse. If Mom and Dad, who stand inplace of God in their very young lives,live this way it must be okay. We’re sup-posed to hurt, and ache, and be lonely,even before we can mouth those words.So the beat goes on.

One thing we need to do is be gentlewith people. Hear what they’re not say-ing. Sometimes that is most important.Just because we don’t see any injuries,that doesn’t mean there are none,because only God can see them, on thesoul.

I said to a friend about this subject, “Idon’t think I can address this theme,because (except for my childhood, and2½ years with Paul) about all I could tellyou about marriage was what not to do.”She said, “That’s important too.” Someof this is “me”; some of it I’ve observed;some of it I read up on or studied in mySocial Work classes.

I’m hoping among you readers, there issomething here some of you can relateto, and I can let you know you aren’talone—as you may have felt you were.And Jesus was always there, but believeme, I couldn’t always find him. One “life-line” is 1 Corinthians 10:13. A “yes I can”verse. It told me Christ would “neverleave me nor forsake me.”

Do you know what? He never did.


By Camay AchtemichukMember, Yorkton SK congregation “The Other Side...”

II

NL


e can curse thedarkness or we canlight a candle.”

That expression isindeed the mes-

sage of Matthew 5:14-16: “You are thelight of the world. A city built on a hill can-not be hidden. No one after lighting alamp puts it under the bushel basket, buton the lampstand, and it gives light to allin the house. In the same way, let yourlight shine before others, so that theymay see your good works and give gloryto your Father in heaven.”

When we look around us we see muchdarkness. We see it in all aspects of life.It is easy to be overwhelmed with dark-ness and instead focus on this darknessrather than lighting our candles. It iseasy to “cover,” as it were, our light bybeing absorbed in all that is dark aroundus.

The shining light spoken of in Matthew5:16 is associated with our good works.We light our candles and let our light

shine by practicing those good works ofone striving to live a Godly life. Our goodworks are in fact a loving response forwhat God has done for us through hisSon, Jesus Christ.

Are we taking the “high road,” the roadless traveled, in our interactions withthose around us? Or do we instinctively,without thinking, often lash out at any-one who would challenge us, or ourpoint of view? Do others observe us asbeing kind, compassionate and courte-ous? Are we filled with empathy andconsideration for others? Do we gen-uinely respect others? Do other peopleknow us as being kind and filled withempathy? How would those around youdescribe you to someone else regardingthese characteristics?

Do they constantly hear us complainingand cursing the darkness and those init? Our job is not to fix everything that isevil in this world, but to show anddemonstrate a better way—the way ofGod.

It starts with our desire to live this “new”way, the way that Christ demonstratedand modeled for us. It starts with us indi-vidually saying that this way is the rightway and must be lived—even though wedo it imperfectly.

That way gets noticed automatically. It isin sharp contrast to everything aroundus. It is the light, the candle, that all willnotice.

Philippians 2:14, 15 gives thatinstruction in a different way: “Do allthings without murmuring and arguing,so that you may be blameless and inno-cent, children of God without blemish inthe midst of a crooked and perversegeneration, in which you shine like starsin the world.”

The emphasis here is don’t “murmur andargue,” but instead be all about living theexample of God. The previous scripturesin Philippians 2 remind us that it is Godliving in us that motivates and gives usthe desire and strength to live that way.We need to ensure we are allowing his

power to flowthrough us and it isnot being thwartedin any way.

Let’s focus on illu-minating the dark-ness around us andbeing noticed asshining stars in themidst of darkness.In this way we willbring honor and gloryto our Creator.

A Better WayBy Larry Chanasyk

Member, London ON congregation

“W“W

NL

C O M M E N T A R Y


foundation of faith in what Christ hasdone.) Our goal cannot be attained byhuman effort, and that is why Jesus diedon the cross. Whatever work had to bedone, he did on the cross. That is ourfoundation.Paul asks, “Does God give you hisSpirit and work miracles among youbecause you observe the law, orbecause you believe what youheard?” (3:5). The people had seenmiracles in their midst. And it was on thebasis of faith, not of works of the Law.

Abraham

Paul then supports his argument fromthe Torah itself. “Consider Abraham,”he said, quoting from Genesis 15:6: “Hebelieved God, and it was credited tohim as righteousness.” Paul con-cludes, “Understand, then, that thosewho believe are children of Abraham“(3:6-7). Paul’s point is that even in theOld Testament, a right relationship withGod came through faith. Abraham wasaccounted righteous on the basis offaith, not because of his obedience. Ifwe have faith, then we are accepted justas Abraham was.

Can non-Jewish people really have arelationship with God on that kind ofbasis? Yes, says Paul, and he againquotes the Torah: “The Scripture fore-saw that God would justify theGentiles by faith, and announced thegospel in advance to Abraham: `Allnations will be blessed through you’ “(v. 8). The Torah says that non-Jews willbe blessed through Abraham—and thatblessing is by faith, not by the Law.Abraham did not need to be given theLaw of Moses, and his spiritual followersdo not need it, either.

ow could anyone believe it?How could the people taughtby Paul himself go so quicklyastray into false doctrines?Paul, who had seen manythings in his ministry, was

flabbergasted. He was aghast that thepeople were being persuaded by such afoolish idea. He wrote a strongly wordedletter to stop this nonsense!

Let’s see what he wrote in Galatians 3,starting in verse 1: “You foolishGalatians! Who has bewitched you?Before your very eyes Jesus Christwas clearly portrayed as crucified.”Here’s the starting point, Paul says:Jesus Christ has been crucified. That isthe foundation on which we build. Hiscrucifixion changes everything, as Paulwill explain.

“I would like to learn just one thingfrom you,” Paul writes. “Did youreceive the Spirit by observing thelaw, or by believing what you heard?”(v. 2). Obviously, they received the Spiritthrough faith, by accepting what theyheard. This is another foundationalpoint. Paul was astounded that theGalatians did not see the consequencesof their experience with the Spirit.

“Are you so foolish? After beginningwith the Spirit, are you now trying toattain your goal by human effort?” (v.3). The Galatian Christians were appar-ently being taught that they needed toadd the Law to their faith. False teacherswere saying that they needed toprogress further in the faith by observingthe Torah. They were teaching circumci-sion and the entire Law of Moses (Gal.5:2-3; Acts 15:5).

Paul says this is a ridiculous idea—if aperson is given the Holy Spirit on thebasis of faith, without deserving this gift,then Christianity is based on faith, andthere is no place for works as far as sal-vation is concerned. (Paul will later com-ment on how Christians should behavein response to Christ’s work, but here hemakes it clear that salvation is on the

Paul concludes, “Those who have faithare blessed along with Abraham, theman of faith” (v. 9). God’s blessing is byfaith.

The Law vs. faith

The Law brings penalties, not blessing.“All who rely on observing the laware under a curse, for it is written:`Cursed is everyone who does notcontinue to do everything written inthe Book of the Law’ “ (v. 10). The Law

is not a way to earn favor with God. Itfunctions in the reverse way, since we allfall short of its demands. If we think wehave to observe the Torah, if we want tobe under the Law, we will be under itscondemnation.

“No one is justified before God by thelaw, because, `The righteous will liveby faith.’ The law is not based onfaith; on the contrary, `The man whodoes these things will live by them’ “(vv. 11-12). Paul is contrasting faith andlaw. Righteous people should live byfaith (Hab. 2:4), but the Law is based onperformance (Lev. 18:5). The Lawemphasizes human effort, but salvationis given by grace through faith in whatJesus has done.

Law-keeping cannot earn us God’sfavor. If we look to it, it can bring only acurse, since we all fall short. But even inthe curse, there is good news—in thecrucifixion of Christ: “Christ redeemedus from the curse of the law bybecoming a curse for us, for it is writ-ten: `Cursed is everyone who is hungon a tree’ “ (v. 13, quoting Deut. 21:23).The Law demanded a penalty for law-breaking, and Jesus Christ paid theworst penalty of the Law.

HHThe Law And The Spirit

A Study Of Galatians 3

B I B L E S T U D Y

By Michael Morrison

The Torah says that non-Jews will be blessed throughAbraham—and that blessing is by faith, not by the Law.Abraham did not need to be given the Law of Moses, and hisspiritual followers do not need it, either.


Paul is using several lines of reasoningto show that Christians are not under theauthority of the Law of Moses; we arenot obligated to obey it. Not only is thelaw ineffective, bringing a curse ratherthan a blessing, Jesus has also paid itsworst penalty. His crucifixion gives Paulthe basis for saying that Christians arenot under the Law.

“He redeemed us in order that theblessing given to Abraham mightcome to the Gentiles through ChristJesus, so that by faith we mightreceive the promise of the Spirit” (v.14). The blessing is by faith as opposedto the Law.

God’s promise not changed by hisLaw

Paul then argues from another angle,using the example of a contract. “Letme take an example from everydaylife. Just as no one can set aside oradd to a human covenant that hasbeen duly established, so it is in thiscase” (v. 15).

Paul is talking about God’s promise toAbraham, which includes being account-ed righteous by faith. Paul writes, “Thepromises were spoken to Abrahamand to his seed. The Scripture doesnot say `and to seeds,’ meaning manypeople, but `and to your seed,’ mean-ing one person, who is Christ” (v. 16).

Here Paul notes that the word seed issingular. Although the singular word canbe used for many seeds, Paul is sayingthat this scripture finds its fulfillmentmost perfectly in one Seed, JesusChrist. It is through him that gentiles canbecome part of Abraham’s descendants(v. 29).

“The law, introduced 430 years later,does not set aside the covenant pre-viously established by God and thusdo away with the promise” (v. 17).What law is Paul talking about? The lawgiven 430 years after Abraham—theLaw of Moses. The laws that came

through Moses cannot change the factthat God accepts people as righteous onthe basis of faith, not by human efforts.

Paul then reasons, “For if the inheri-tance depends on the law, then it nolonger depends on a promise; butGod in his grace gave it to Abrahamthrough a promise” (v. 18). Either it isone way or the other—either by lawsand works, or by faith and gift. Paul doesnot try to combine the two. Rather, he issaying they cannot be combined.

Purpose of the Law

Why did God give the law? Paulanswers: “It was added because oftransgressions until the Seed towhom the promise referred hadcome” (v. 19). Were laws addedbecause the people were already break-ing them? Or were they added so thatpeople could see more clearly that theywere sinners? Either way, the Law ofMoses was added for only a certainlength of time—until Christ came. Afterthat, the Law of Moses became obso-lete.

“Is the law, therefore, opposed to thepromises of God? Absolutely not! Forif a law had been given that couldimpart life, then righteousness wouldcertainly have come by the law” (v.21). The Law did not nullify the promiseof salvation by faith, for it was notdesigned as another means of salvation.If there was any way possible for laws tobring us right standing with God, thenGod would have given us those laws.But the Law of Moses is not designed togive us eternal life.

People who think they can improve theirstanding with God through the Law aremisunderstanding its purpose and arenot accepting the biblical evidence thatsalvation is simply by faith, without anyrole for human efforts. We receive theSpirit by faith and are counted righteousby faith, without any need to add theLaw of Moses.

The Law cannot give life, because we allfall short of what it requires. “TheScripture declares that the wholeworld is a prisoner of sin, so thatwhat was promised, being giventhrough faith in Jesus Christ, mightbe given to those who believe” (v. 22).Instead of giving life, the Law prescribespenalties, and the result is that thepromise of salvation can come onlythrough God’s grace. The Law makes itclear that we all fall short and need thesalvation that Jesus offers by faith.

But before faith in Christ came, “we [theJewish people] were held prisonersby the law, locked up until faithshould be revealed” (v. 23). The Jewswere under the restrictions of the law,under its temporary jurisdiction or cus-tody. “So the law was put in charge tolead us to Christ that we might be jus-tified by faith” (v. 24). The law hadauthority from Moses until Christ. Itshowed that humans are prisoners ofsin, unable to save themselves throughhuman effort. It showed that salvationcan be received only through faith, notby law.

Now that the Law of Moses has fulfilledits purpose, it has become obsolete:“Now that faith has come, we are nolonger under the supervision of thelaw” (v. 25). The Torah does not haveauthority over us. It is not a way to getright with God. It is not a way to enter hiskingdom nor a way to stay in his king-dom nor a way to improve our standingwith God. Because of Jesus’ crucifixion,our relationship with God dependsentirely on faith. “You are all childrenof God through faith in Christ Jesus”(v. 26).

B I B L E S T U D Y C O N T I N U E D

NL

N O R T H E R N L I G H T

me repose donc sur la foi et il n’y a aucu-ne place pour les œuvres en ce quiconcerne le salut. (Paul abordera plustard la manière dont les chrétiensdevraient se comporter en réponse àl’œuvre de Christ, mais dans ce verset,il dit clairement que le salut repose sur lafoi dans l’œuvre de Christ.) Nous nepouvons être sauvés par nos ressourceshumaines, et c’est la raison pour laquel-le Jésus est mort sur la croix. Ce quidevait être accompli a été accompli surla croix. C’est notre fondement.

Puis Paul leur demande : « Voyons !Lorsque Dieu vous donne son Esprit etqu’il accomplit parmi vous des miracles,le fait-il parce que vous obéissez à la Loi

ou parce que vous accueillez avec foi laBonne Nouvelle que vous avez enten-due ? » (v. 5) Les gens avaient vu desmiracles se produire parmi eux en raisonde leur foi et non des œuvres de la Loi.

Abraham

Paul utilise ensuite la Torah pour soute-nir son argument : « Or, il en a déjà étéainsi pour Abraham, car l’Écriture décla-re à son sujet : Il a eu confiance en Dieuet Dieu, en portant sa foi à son crédit, l’adéclaré juste » (v. 6 citant Ge 15.6). Et ilpoursuit en disant : « Comprenez-ledonc : seuls ceux qui placent leurconfiance en Dieu sont les fils

2 6

omment quelqu’un pouvait-ilcroire cela ? Comment lesgens à qui Paul avait lui-même enseigné pouvaient-ilss’éloigner si rapidement de lavraie doctrine ? Paul, qui avait

vu beaucoup de choses dans sonministère, était époustouflé. Il étaitatterré par le fait que les gens se lais-saient persuader par une idée siinsensée. Il a écrit une lettre vigoureusepour mettre fin à ce non-sens.

Examinons ce qu’il dit en Galates 3.1 :« Ô Galates insensés ! Qui vous aenvoûtés ainsi ? Pourtant, la mort deJésus-Christ sur la croix a été clairementdépeinte à vos yeux. » Voilà le point dedépart de Paul quand il parle de la mortde Jésus-Christ sur la croix. C’est le fon-dement sur lequel nous bâtissons. Sacrucifixion change tout, comme Paull’explique.

« Je ne vous poserai qu’une seule ques-tion : À quel titre avez-vous reçu leSaint-Esprit ? Est-ce parce que vousavez accompli la Loi, ou parce que vousavez accueilli avec foi la Bonne Nouvelleque vous avez entendue ? » (v. 2) Detout évidence, ils avaient reçu l’Espritpar la foi, en acceptant le message qu’ilsavaient entendu. Voilà un autre pointfondamental. Paul était étonné du faitque les Galates ne voyaient pas laportée de leur expérience avec l’Esprit.

« Manquez-vous à ce pointd’intelligence ? Après avoir commencépar l’Esprit de Dieu, est-ce en comptantsur vos propres ressources que vousallez parvenir à la perfection ? » (v. 3)De faux enseignants avaient apparem-ment enseigné aux chrétiens de laGalatie qu’ils devaient ajouter la Loi àleur foi. Ils leur disaient que pour pro-gresser dans la foi ils devaient observerla Torah. Ils enseignaient la circoncisionet toute la loi de Moïse (Ga 5.2,3 ;Ac 15.5).

Paul dit que c’est une idée ridicule : siune personne reçoit le Saint-Esprit parla foi, sans mériter ce don, le christianis-

Étude biblique

La Loi et l’EspritUne étude de Galates 3

de Michael Morrison

CC

La Torah dit que les non-Juifs seront bénis par Abraham etque la bénédiction dépend de la foi et non de la Loi. Abrahamn’avait pas besoin d’avoir la Loi de Moïse, et ses fils spirituelsn’en avaient pas besoin non plus.


d’Abraham » (v. 7). Le point de Paul estque, même dans l’Ancien Testament,une relation juste avec Dieu reposait surla foi. Abraham a été justifié par sa foi, etnon par son obéissance. Si nous avonsla foi, nous sommes donc acceptéscomme Abraham l’a été.

Les non-Juifs peuvent-ils vraiment avoirune relation avec Dieu sur cette mêmebase de la foi ? Oui, écrit Paul, et il citela Torah encore une fois : « De plus,l’Écriture prévoyait que Dieu déclareraitles non-Juifs justes s’ils avaient la foi.C’est pourquoi elle a annoncé par avan-ce cette bonne nouvelle à Abraham : Tuseras une source de bénédictions pourtoutes les nations » (v. 8). La Torah ditque les non-Juifs seront bénis parAbraham et que la bénédiction dépendde la foi et non de la Loi. Abrahamn’avait pas besoin d’avoir la Loi deMoïse, et ses fils spirituels n’en avaientpas besoin non plus.

Paul conclut en disant : « Ainsi, tousceux qui font confiance à Dieu, commeAbraham lui a fait confiance, ont part àla bénédiction avec lui » (v. 9). La béné-diction de Dieu résulte de la foi.

La Loi par rapport à la foi

La Loi entraîne des châtiments et nondes bénédictions : « En effet, ceux quicomptent sur leur obéissance à la Loitombent sous le coup de la malédiction,car il est écrit : Maudit soit l’homme quin’obéit par continuellement à tout ce quiest écrit dans le livre de la Loi » (v. 10).La Loi n’est pas un moyen de gagner lafaveur de Dieu. Elle fonctionne àl’inverse, puisque nous sommes tousincapables d’y obéir. Si nous pensonsdevoir observer la Torah et si nous vou-lons être sous la Loi, nous serons soussa condamnation.

« Il est d’ailleurs évident que personnene sera déclaré juste devant Dieu grâceà son obéissance à la Loi, puisquel’Écriture déclare : Le juste vivra par lafoi. Or, le régime de la Loi ne fait pasdépendre de la foi la justice de l’hommedevant Dieu. Au contraire, il obéit à cet

autre principe : C’est en accomplissanttous ces commandements que l’onobtient la vie » (v. 11,12). Paul met encontraste la foi et la Loi. Les justesdevraient vivre par la foi (Ha 2.4), maisla Loi repose sur les œuvres (Lé 18.5).La Loi souligne les efforts humains, tan-dis que le salut s’obtient par la foi enl’œuvre de Jésus.

L’observation de la Loi ne peut nousfaire gagner la faveur de Dieu. Si nous yavons recours, elle ne peut qu’apporter

une malédiction, puisqu’aucun de nousne peut l’observer. Mais même dans lamalédiction, il y a une bonne nouvelle –dans la crucifixion de Christ : « Le Christnous a libérés de la malédiction que laLoi faisait peser sur nous en prenant lamalédiction sur lui, à notre place. Il est,en effet, écrit : Maudit est quiconque estpendu au gibet » (v. 13, citant De 21.23).La Loi exigeait un châtiment pour l’avoirbrisée, et Jésus-Christ a subi le pirechâtiment de la Loi.

Paul se sert de plusieurs raisonnementspour montrer que les chrétiens ne sontpas sous l’autorité de la Loi de Moïse etque nous ne sommes pas obligés d’yobéir. Non seulement la Loi est ineffica-ce, apportant une malédiction plutôtqu’une bénédiction, mais Jésus a égale-ment subi le pire châtiment de la Loi.Paul utilise, comme fondement, la cruci-fixion de Jésus pour soutenir que leschrétiens ne sont pas sous la Loi.« Jésus-Christ l’a fait pour que, grâce àlui, la bénédiction d’Abraham s’étendeaux non-Juifs et que nous recevions, parla foi, l’Esprit que Dieu avait promis »

(v. 14). La bénédiction s’obtient par la foipar opposition à la Loi.

La Loi n’invalide pas la promesse deDieu

Paul poursuit son explication sous unautre angle, en utilisant l’exemple d’uncontrat. « Mes frères, prenons unexemple de la vie ordinaire. Lorsqu’unhomme a rédigé son testament enbonne et due forme, personne ne peutl’annuler ou y ajouter quoi que ce soit »(v. 15).

L’apôtre parle en ces termes de la pro-messe de Dieu faite à Abraham, quicomprend la justification par la foi : « Or,c’est à Abraham et à sa descendanceque Dieu a fait ses promesses. Il n’estpas dit : “et à ses descendances”,comme s’il devait y avoir plusieurslignées pour bénéficier de ces pro-messes. À ta descendance ne désignequ’une seule descendance, et c’est leChrist » (v. 16).

Dans ce verset, Paul souligne que lemot « descendance » est singulier.Même si le mot singulier peut être utilisépour désigner plusieurs descendances,Paul dit que ce passage de l’Écriture seréalise le plus parfaitement par uneseule descendance, Jésus-Christ. C’estpar lui que les non-Juifs peuvent fairepartie de la descendance d’Abraham(v. 29).

« Eh bien, je dis ceci : une alliance a étéconclue par Dieu en bonne et due formeà la manière d’un testament : la Loi estsurvenue quatre cent trente ans plustard ; elle ne peut donc pas annuler cettealliance et réduire par là même la pro-

Étude biblique

Dans ce verset, Paul souligne que le mot « descendance » estsingulier. Même si le mot singulier peut être utilisé pour dési-gner plusieurs descendances, Paul dit que ce passage del’Écriture se réalise le plus parfaitement par une seule des-cendance, Jésus-Christ. C’est par lui que les non-Juifs peu-vent faire partie de la descendance d’Abraham (v. 29).


messe à néant » (v. 17). De quelle loiPaul parle-t-il ? De la loi de Moïsedonnée 430 ans après Abraham. Leslois que Dieu a données à Moïse nepeuvent changer le fait que Dieu justifieles gens en fonction de la foi et non desefforts humains.

Paul continue ainsi : « En effet, sil’héritage du salut dépend del’accomplissement de la Loi, il ne reposeplus sur la promesse. Or, c’est bien parune promesse que Dieu a accordé safaveur à Abraham » (v. 18). C’est par unmoyen ou par un autre, soit par la Loi etles œuvres, soit par la foi et la grâce.Paul n’essaie pas de combiner les deux ;au contraire, il affirme que les deux nepeuvent être combinées.

Le but de la Loi

Pourquoi Dieu a-t-il donné la Loi ? Paulrépond à cette question : « […] Elle a étéajoutée pour mettre en évidence ladésobéissance des hommes à l’ordredivin, et le régime qu’elle a instaurédevait rester en vigueur jusqu’à la venuede la descendance d’Abraham que lapromesse concernait […] » (v. 19). Leslois ont-elles été données parce que lesgens les brisaient déjà ? Ou pour queles gens voient plus clairement qu’ilsétaient des pécheurs ? De toute façon,la Loi de Moïse a été donnée seulementpour un certain temps, jusqu’à la venuede Christ. Après cela, la Loi de Moïseest devenue obsolète.

« La Loi irait-elle donc à l’encontre despromesses divines ? Certainement pas !Ah ! sans doute, si nous avions reçu uneloi qui puisse procurer la vie auxhommes, alors nous pourrions êtrejustes devant Dieu sous le régime decette loi » (v. 21). La Loi n’a pas invalidéla promesse de salut par la foi, car ellen’était pas destinée à être un autremoyen de salut. Si les lois pouvaientnous justifier devant Dieu, Dieu nous lesaurait données. Mais la Loi de Moïsen’est pas destinée à nous donner la vieéternelle.

Les gens qui croient pouvoir améliorerleur position auprès de Dieu par la Loine comprennent pas son but etn’acceptent pas la preuve biblique quele salut s’obtient seulement par la foi,sans donner de place aux ressourceshumaines. Nous recevons l’Esprit par lafoi et nous sommes justifiés par la foi,sans devoir ajouter la Loi de Moïse.

La Loi ne peut nous donner la vie, parceque nous sommes tous incapables del’accomplir. « Mais voici le verdict del’Écriture : l’humanité entière se trouveprisonnière de sa culpabilité devant Dieuafin que le don promis par Dieu soitaccordé aux croyants au moyen de leurfoi en Jésus-Christ » (v. 22). La Loi,plutôt que de donner la vie, prescrit deschâtiments, et c’est pourquoi la promes-se du salut ne vient que par la grâce deDieu. La Loi dit clairement que noussommes tous privés de la gloire de Dieuet que nous avons besoin du salut queJésus offre par la foi en son sacrifice.

« Avant que soit instauré le régime de lafoi, nous étions emprisonnés par la Loiet sous sa surveillance, dans l’attente durégime de la foi qui devait être révélé »(v. 23). Les Juifs vivaient sous les res-trictions de la loi, sous sa juridiction ousa garde temporaire. « Ainsi, la Loi a étécomme un gardien chargé de nousconduire au Christ pour que noussoyons déclarés justes devant Dieu parla foi » (v. 24). De Moïse à Christ, la Loifaisait autorité. Elle montrait que lesêtres humains étaient prisonniers dupéché, incapables de se sauver par

leurs efforts humains. La Loi montraitégalement que le salut peut seulementêtre reçu par la foi, et non par son obser-vation.

Ayant accompli son but, la Loi de Moïseest devenue obsolète : « Mais depuisque le régime de la foi a été instauré,nous ne sommes plus soumis à ce gar-

dien » (v. 25). La Torah n’a aucune auto-rité sur nous. Elle ne peut nous justifierdevant Dieu. La Loi n’est ni un moyend’entrer dans le royaume de Dieu, ni unmoyen d’y rester, ni un moyend’améliorer notre position auprès de lui.Grâce à la crucifixion de Jésus, notrerelation avec Dieu dépend entièrementde la foi. « Maintenant, par la foi enJésus-Christ, vous êtes tous fils de Dieu »(v. 26).

Étude biblique

La Torah n’a aucune autorité sur nous. Elle ne peut nous jus-tifier devant Dieu. La Loi n’est ni un moyen d’entrer dans leroyaume de Dieu, ni un moyen d’y rester, ni un moyend’améliorer notre position auprès de lui. Grâce à la crucifixionde Jésus, notre relation avec Dieu dépend entièrement de lafoi. « Maintenant, par la foi en Jésus-Christ, vous êtes tousfils de Dieu » (v. 26).

NL


n the last few years the concept ofIntelligent Design (ID) has really hitthe news headlines. Articles inmajor weeklies like Time and edito-rials in other magazines and news-papers have discussed the pros

and cons of the controversy, which hasbeen raging especially in the UnitedStates.

What is Intelligent Design? It is the ideathat, because the universe and life areso complex, they must be the deliberatecreation of a higher power. That power isnot usually named as God byID enthusiasts—the point of IntelligentDesign theory is merely to introduce thenotion of a Designer into the scienceclassroom, as a counter to evolutionism,without necessarily making a statementabout who the designer may be.

Predictably, the scientific community hasreacted very strongly against this. Theysay it is merely a ploy to introduce thecreationist interpretation of origins intoeducation. [Strictly, Creationism is a par-ticular interpretation of Genesis 1, thefirst chapter in the Bible. What might becalled “young-earth creationists” arguethat the universe, earth, and all lifewere created in just six days about10,000 years ago. But the term is usual-ly also applied to “old-earth creationists,”who accept scientific evidence that theuniverse is billions of years old but nev-ertheless argue that God created allthere is by separate acts of fiat (“Letthere be ...”) during those billions ofyears.]

Most scientists, on the other hand,including many Christian scientists,point out that science cannot prove theexistence of God, therefore invoking himto explain something in nature that wemay not yet understand, in fact explainsnothing. To do so brings all scientificenquiry to a halt.

Ironically, these scientists may haveScripture on their side. Jesus Christspecifically said, “God is Spirit.” Whatthis means is that God, who created

time, space and matter, is outside timeand space and is non-material, thereforehe cannot be detected by the tools ofscience. He cannot be seen, measured,weighed, quantified, or objectified.

Science is simply inadequate to the taskof pointing to any one difficult-to-explaingap in scientific knowledge and saying,“There, this definitely, measurably,objectively proves beyond all doubt thatGod is responsible for the existenceof...” The sentence might be completedin any number of ways, such as: the fun-damental forces of nature, star forma-tion, proteins and nucleic acids, livingcells, complex organs like the eye,species, and so on. This doesn’t meanGod may not be behind all thesethings—it’s just that that the scientificmethod cannot prove it one way or theother.

This actually poses no problem toChristianity. Christian scholars and com-mentators note that the Bible points outthat God can only be known spirituallyand relationally. While the Bible doesclearly say that the creation is God’shandiwork and gives evidence of his

existence, this is in terms of gener-al revelation. This is why some Christianscientists have no difficulty with, say, theconcept of biological evolution, arguingthat God fully gifted the creation with theability to be and to become. These sci-entists make a distinction between evo-lution (a natural process that may itselfhave been created) and evolution-ism (an atheistic philosophy that deniesthe possibility of a creator). Whateverthe case, many theologiansare themselves agreeing that the idea ofIntelligent Design does not belong in thescience classroom, though it certainlybelongs in classes on religion or culturalhistory.

This is why, on November 18, 2005, theVatican’s chief astronomer, astrophysi-cist George Coyne, stated that“Intelligent Design” isn’t science anddoesn’t belong in science classrooms.While reaffirming God’s role in creation,he said that science explains the historyof the universe. Even the conservativeU.S. ministry group Reasons to Believerecently stated, “As it currently stands,we believe ID should not be taught inbiology class. That is not to say we thinkthere’s a lack of evidence in the recordof nature for the work of an IntelligentDesigner. Far from it! ... However, at thisjuncture, ID isn’t formulated as a scien-tific theory. To date, ID has not devel-oped an origins model with scientificallytestable assertions and falsifi-able predictions. No ID theory accountsfor the history of the universe and of life.There are no ID predictions about whatscientists should discover when theyexamine the record of nature. Without atestable model, ID cannot guide futurescientific investigation.”

Dennis Gordon, who lives in NewZealand with his wife Brenda and 13-year-old son Adrian, is a marine biol-ogist at a Crown Research Instituteand serves on the Wellington Councilof Churches.

Should Intelligent Design Be TaughtIn The Science Classroom?

By Dennis Gordon

F R O M C H R I S T I A N O D Y S S E Y

II

NL


become united with the Son of Man forthe specific purpose to save sinfulhumans. This is the act of free gracewhere God gives “love in the deepestcondescension,” that is, he reachesdown to pull humans to himself (p. 10).The Son of God empties and humbleshimself so that humans may be united infellowship with God (see Philippians 2:6-8; John 17:22-24).

This is the work of the Triune God:Father, Son and Spirit, in perfect loveand perfect unity for the sake of human-ity. Barth wrote, “This work of the Son ofGod includes the work of the Father asits presupposition and the work of the

Holy Spirit as its consequence.”3 Weknow the Father loves us because weknow Jesus loves us, and we live in thisassurance by the Spirit.

Scripture tells us that God is love (1John 4:8, 16). As the Triune God, theFather, Son and Holy Spirit have freelyshared their perfect love and fellowshipwithin the Godhead eternally, and byGod’s own free choice, he elects toshare that same love with humanitythrough Jesus Christ, who is the electman on behalf of all humanity.

How do we know about this choice?Barth explains, “It is grounded in theknowledge of Jesus Christ because Heis both the electing God and elected

man in One.”4 We only need to look toJesus Christ to know about this election.Theologian Robert Jenson explains,“Jesus Christ is therefore the basis ofthe doctrine of election. All its state-

ments must be statements about Him.”5

o, we are not talking about the2008 U.S. election betweenSenators McCain and Obama.We’re talking about the elec-tion that affects all nations andall people who have ever

lived: the election of Jesus Christ.

Many theologians have attempted tograsp the mystery of election attested toin Scripture. One of the most influentialcommentators on the doctrine of elec-tion is the Swiss theologian Karl Barth.For Barth, the doctrine of election is thesum of the gospel and the foundation forunderstanding God.

God’s free choice

“Election” simply means “a choice.” TheChristian doctrine of election involves achoice made by God. For Karl Barth, thisdoctrine—the decision of God before alltime to be who he is for humanity—is thebasic truth on which all other Christiantruths are built. The doctrine of electioninvolves two aspects, the electing Godand the elected man. As the electingGod, the Father, the Son, and the HolySpirit together make a choice. Thechoice God makes is that the Son ofGod will become the elected man, Jesusof Nazareth.

The Triune God eternally elects, orchooses, in divine freedom, to be forhumanity the God of grace and love.Therefore, in Jesus Christ, who is fullyGod and fully man, God is both the elec-tor and the elected. Barth wrote, “In themidst of time it happened that Godbecame man for our good. While under-lining the uniqueness of this event, wehave to reflect that this was not an acci-dent, not one historical event amongothers. But it is the event which God

willed from eternity.”1

Theologian and Barth scholar JohnWebster describes it this way, “Godelects to be this God, God in this man,

God known in and as Jesus Christ.”2 Asthe act of grace and love, the Son ofGod is elected to give of himself to

C H R I S T I A N O D Y S S E Y C O N T I N U E D

By Eric WildingMember, Toronto East congregation

Karl Barth:

The Most Important Election Ever

NN “To pronounce the name of Jesus Christ means to acknowledge thatwe are cared for, that we are not lost. Jesus Christ is man’s sal-vation in all circumstances and in face of all that darkens his life,including the evil that proceeds from himself. There is nothingwhich is not already made good in this happening, that God becameman for our good. Anything that is left can be no more than the dis-covery of this fact. We do not exist in any kind of gloomy uncer-tainty; we exist through the God who was gracious to us before weexisted at all. It may be true that we exist in contradiction to thisGod, that we live in remoteness from Him, indeed in hostility to Him.It is still truer that God has prepared reconciliation for us, beforewe entered the struggle against Him. And true though it may bethat in connection with our alienation from God man can only beregarded as a lost being, it is still much truer that God has so actedfor our good, does it and will also act, that there exists a salvationfor every lost condition. It is this faith that we are called to beliefthrough the Christian Church and in the Holy Spirit.” — Karl Barth,Dogmatics in Outline, page 71.


Predestination

For Barth, predestination is identical withthe election of Jesus Christ. God freelychooses or predestines himself and allhumans to be in loving relationship withand through Jesus Christ. God will haveit no other way; he loves humanity andwill not be without humanity.

The problem is that humans are fallen,sinful beings who reject God and needredemption in order to stand in that fel-lowship from their side. Scripture testi-fies to God’s foreknowledge—beforecreation—that human beings would besinful and would be in need of redemp-tion and reconciliation (see 1 Peter 1:18-21; Revelation 13:8; Romans 5:6-11;8:28-30; Ephesians 1:3-14; Colossians1:15-20). Barth explains, “Yet thesetransgressors are the ones on whosebehalf the eternal love of God for JesusChrist is willed and extended” (p. 123).

You may say, “Predestination? Doesn’tthat mean that God accepted some (theelect) and rejected others (the repro-bate) before he even created humani-ty?”

Barth challenged this hyper-Calvinistversion of “double predestination”because of its lack of scriptural support.For Barth, God is not a capricious tyrantwho elects some to salvation and electsothers to perdition by some abstractabsolute decree. On the contrary, allknowledge we have about God and hiselection is in and through Jesus Christ—there is nothing hidden beyond orbehind that knowledge.

Double predestination in JesusChrist

For Barth, “double predestination” has todo with the election of Jesus Christ forcrucifixion and resurrection. Before timebegan, God accepted us by electingJesus Christ in our place and on ourbehalf through the Incarnation, the crossand the empty tomb.At the crucifixion, God rejects and says

NO to disordered human sin that causedalienation from him. However, God’s NOis not directed at us—even though wedeserve it because of our rejection ofGod. Instead, Jesus takes the rejectionand the NO of God totally upon himselfas the human representative of and sub-stitute for all humanity.

The NO is absolutely necessary so thatwe can hear God’s YES. Jesus Christdoes not come to the world as “anaccuser, as a prosecutor, as a judge, asan executioner.” Instead he is “the her-ald of this Yes which God has spoken toit [the world]…. God has loved it from alleternity, and…He has put His love into

action in the death of Jesus Christ.”6

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is God’sYES to Jesus Christ. It is the acceptanceof Jesus Christ’s obedient submission toGod’s will. In and through Jesus Christ,the YES of God is freely given to allhuman beings. Therefore, we may saythat Jesus Christ is our elected repre-sentative.

You may ask, “What does the NO andYES mean for me?”

Theologian Joseph Mangina writes,God’s No is “a death-dealing rejection ofsin and evil” and Yes is “a life-giving affir-

mation of covenant love.”7 The NOpassed away at the cross; Jesus Christbore the NO and totally removed it.There remains only the covenant or rela-tionship of YES with the resurrection ofJesus Christ (see 2 Corinthians 1:19-20).

Ultimately, double predestinationinvolves Jesus dying for the sins ofevery human being who ever lived—notjust a closed number of elect—so that allmight have eternal life (see John 3:16-17; 1 Timothy 2:3-6; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John2:2). At the resurrection, the Father gaveacceptance to Jesus Christ and every-one with him. Barth states, “We have tosee our own election in that of the manJesus because His election includes

ours within itself and because ours isgrounded in His. We are elected togeth-er with Him in so far as we are elected ‘inHim’” (p. 120).

The good news

Barth calls the doctrine of election thesum of the gospel, for it reveals the heartof God: “God’s eternal will is the electionof Jesus Christ” (p. 146). He is the lovingGod who has freely chosen and createdhuman beings to be in his image and infellowship with him. This is the absolutegood news. There is no bad news mixedwith the good news, no fear mixed withterror, no certainty mixed with uncertain-ty. We are not left to blind fate or someunknown will of God. Our election andpredestination by God is certain in JesusChrist, and in him alone and in him fullywe have and know the will of God for themeaning and direction of our lives.

1 Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline(Harper & Row: 1959), 69. 2 John Webster, Barth: OutstandingChristian Thinkers (Continuum, 2000),91. 3 Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline, 71. 4 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics II/2(T&T Clark, 2004), 3. All quotes, unlessotherwise cited, come from this source. 5 Robert W. Jenson, Alpha and Omega:A Study in the Theology of Karl Barth(Wipf & Stock, 2002), 144. 6 Karl Barth, Church DogmaticsIV/1(T&T Clark, 1956), 347. 7 Joseph L. Mangina, Karl Barth:Theologian of Christian Witness(Westminster John Knox, 2004), 75.

C H R I S T I A N O D Y S S E Y C O N T I N U E D

NL

The Ottawa Women’s Retreat - 2008

The 8th Ottawa Women’s Retreat metat the Maison Ste-Marie, Vankleek Hill,

Ontario from September 19 - 21st, 2008.An atmosphere of excitement pervadedas 42 ladies from the Ottawa, SmithsFalls, Montreal, Cornwall, and Kingstoncongregations gathered together topraise God.

The theme chosen for the gatheringwas: “Our Walk, Our Journey and OurGrowth.” Linda Rabey, wife of pastor BillRabey, opened by welcoming everyone.Bev Ferlatte led praise and worship, andCatherine Dolcini then directed a periodof questions and answers.

We were inspired on Saturday morningwith a message from Beth Moore enti-tled “Pressing Past Our Fears.”Sheencouraged us to trust in our God andpress forward, regardless of the chal-lenges we face, as he is always there forus.

Later, Laurie Rand reviewed Proverbs31 and the book of Esther in a discus-sion on ‘Brawn, Brains and Beauty.”Laurie explained how we as women canuse the many qualities and strengthsGod has given us to find solutions anddirection in our lives. With these Godgiven qualities and our Father’s guid-ance we are able to solve the difficultieswe face each day. We are washed cleanby the blood of Christ and stand beauti-ful before him. Through his spirit wegrow in beauty each day.

Linda Rabey spoke on the wonders of

God’s creation. We learned the manyhealth advantages provided us by thevast assortment of herbs. His amazingcreation illustrates his infinite wisdomand his love toward us.

On Sunday we enjoyed a lovely lessonfrom Helen Latimer-Hanah entitled:“Beneath the Clutter.” Just as there is abeautiful table cloth beneath the clutterwhich often collects on our kitchen table,so in our lives, beneath the clutter offear, hate, worry, guilt, regret, andshame we too are beautiful when wegive it all to God. We become trophies ofhis grace.

“Who Are You Not To Be?” was the chal-lenge given us by Micheline Monti. Weare God’s children, we are born to man-ifest his glory that lives within us; there-fore we must be talented without fear,doubts and regrets. We must enjoy ourmany blessings and gifts. Trust him,believe him, and be joyful that God seeswhat we really are.

Throughout the Retreat we were led ininspiring songs of praise by ArchangeChenier, Bev Ferlatte, Nicole Lim andHelen Latimer-Hanah. We also had thefun of choosing a “Secret Sister.” Theidea was to anonymously choose thename of another person, then through-out the year we will send cards and per-haps little gifts to encourage and showlove.

Amid the many lessons we learned, welaughed a lot, and enjoyed scrumptiousfood prepared by our wonderful hosts,the sisters from Maison Ste-Marie. Theirgracious kindness and hospitality helpedto make the retreat a most memorableexperience.

Colleen Briault

MANTALA, Francisca: (90) of theMontreal congregation passed awaysuddenly January 1, 2009 during herannual visit home to Manila, Philippines.She was born on March 10, 1918, andmarried Pablo Mantala, a seaman withMaersk Lines, in January 1940. Her hus-

band was a US scout during WWII and aBataan Death March survivor. Duringthe Japanese occupation, Mrs. Mantalaescaped to the mountains of thePhilippines and told numerous stories ofhiding adventures and watching aerialdogfights between the Filipino andJapanese pilots. In the early 1960s, sheowned a very successful grocery storeand became one of the first women dri-vers in Manila able to buy her own car.Fire destroyed her business in 1975and, though rebuilt, it was not as suc-cessful.

Her husband died in Baltimore,Maryland in December 1965 when Mrs.Mantala was only 47 years of age. Shenever remarried. In 1977, she arrived inCanada where she worked as a seam-stress in the garment industry until sheretired. She began attending WorldwideChurch of God (Montreal) in 1992. Sheis survived by two daughters (Carmelita,Evangeline), four grandchildren, includ-ing Rose (Deo) Eugenio, of the Montrealcongregation, and her family, whichincludes three (Kristine, Zachary, Jared)of Mrs. Mantala’s thirteen great grand-children.

The Montreal congregation held amemorial service in her honour onJanuary 10, 2009; Mrs. Mantala hasbeen buried in the Philippines. Her faith-ful participation and cheerful attitude willbe missed by young and less young inher home congregation.


N A T I O N A L N E W S

OBITUARIES

A F R I C A S U M M E R C A M P

Do you love to listen to audio tape mes-

sages from dynamic Christian speakers?

Northern Light Magazine is pleased to pro-

vide an audio cassette tape ministry in

conjunction with the Edmonton, Alberta

congregation.

A sermon based on the theme for each

issue of Northern Light will be prepared by

some of the best speakers from across the

country.

Northern Light Tape Ministries15641 96 Ave.Edmonton, AB T5P 2R7Phone: (780) 444-8903Fax: (780) 484-5661Email: [email protected]

This Month’This Month’s Ts Tape Ofape Offer :fer :

"New Year - Old You?"

How much is God really asking of me?Where do I find the power to change?

NORTHERN LIGHTVol.12, No.1 January-March

Bill HallEditor

Layout and DesignGary Moore

Editorial AdvisorDavid Bacon

Doug Collie

Copy EditorsColin Wallace

Online Edition EditorFrancine Lemay

French TranslatorFeature EditorsDorothy Nordstrom

Jonathan BuckDavid Sheridan

Phil GaleNeil Earle

Northern Light is published 4times annually for members ofthe Worldwide Church of God inCanada. Editorial contributionsand comments on any issueraised in Northern Light are wel-come although unsolicited mate-rials may not be returned.Please address all correspon-dence to:The Editor,

Northern Light101 - 5668 192 Street,Surrey, BC V3S 2V7

or email us at: [email protected]

The new online edition ofNorthern Light is available atwww.wcg.ca.

Portions of Northern Light aregenerously provided compli-ments of Christian Odyssey, pub-lished bi-monthly by theWorldwide Church of God.

Unless noted otherwise, scrip-tures are quoted from the HolyBible, New International Version,© Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984International Bible Society. Usedby permission of ZondervanBible Publishers. À moins d'indi-cation contraire, les versets citéssont tirés de la Bible Le Semeur.

Publications AgreementNumber 40063058

If undeliverable return to:

Northern Light101 - 5668 192 St.Surrey, BC V3S 2V7email: [email protected]

Northern Light Tape Ministry!Northern Light Tape Ministry!

Ben Lim from the Ottawa congregation flew to South Africa in December. He served inseveral capacities at the Summer Camp there, and then flew to Zambia and served atthe summer camp near Victoria Falls for youth from Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Malawi.There were youth from the Congo as well, and reps.from South Africa, Ireland as well asCanada. Ben sent us a number of pics from his trip. Two are above:

The first is of one of the 11 baptisms that took place at the camp in Zambia.The second is of one of the boy's dorms at the South African Camp.

We have heard from people at both camps that Ben was a wonderful ambassador for us.He represented Camp Connections (our eastern camp), his congregation in Ottawa, andthe WCG here in Canada. We appreciated Ben's willingness to make the trip, and aredelighted with the wonderful impression he left on those he served. Gary Moore

marriage - old rules / new rules

Documents