Mixed Faith Marriages

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?--2 Corinthians 6:14

A recent article in the local paper by Melissa Dutton of the Associated Press addressed the issue of what to do when the bride and groom come from different religious traditions.  Americans seem to be marrying outside of their faiths with increasing regularity as 25% of Americans households were mixed faith in 2006, up from 15 per cent in 1988.  This is disturbing for the Kingdom on a number of fronts because it means that we are not passing on the faith and its doctrines to those who come after us.

I found myself agreeing with much of the article as it seemed to emphasize that the couples have a no holds barred discussion before getting married about how they will practice their faiths,  which holidays they will celebrate, etc.  Rabbi Stuart E. Davis of Overland Park Kansas is quoted saying that both individuals should think hard about what is important in their own religions.  Well, duh?   Various other considerations that should be explored  were mentioned in the rest of the article, the most important being, in which faith tradition will the children be raised.

It seems to me, that for Christians, this is a no brainer.  Don't date outside the faith and then one will not marry outside the faith.  I am not enough of a theologian to know whether or not 2 Corinthians 6:14 is a command or a warning, but in either case, it is sound advice.  The one issue that causes most divorces is the issue of money, but religious disagreements would have to rank near the top.   The article even offered the sound advice that interfaith marriages are not for everyone and that it would be much better to part company if there are insurmountable differences.  I would say that they are not for anyone who takes their faith seriously and wishes their marriage to survive, because there are going to be differences that will be impossible to resolve in my  view.

The one thing that stunned me was the statement by Ed Case, CEO of InterfaithFamily.com that, "It takes a very mature couple that can be freely open and have a willingness to believe and respect that no religion is more right than another."  Say what?  This is post-modern relativism, the denial that there is an absolute truth plainly stated. 

Truth  by its very nature is exclusive.  Why would someone be a Jew, Hindu, Muslim or Christian if they did not believe that their belief system was true?  This is especially applicable to Christians, as Christ said in the book of John that his very purpose in coming was to bear witness to the truth and He claimed to be the truth.

Every other religion denies the deity of Christ, His atoning death and His bodily resurrection. The law of non-contradiction says that two opposing truth claims cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense.  For someone who claimed to be a Christian to deny the claims of Christ and yield to the proposition that it is no more true than the claims of another religion, would be to deny his or her faith.  That individual would not be a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word.

Lives Unworthy to be Lived

For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.-Psalm 139:13

There is a bill making its way through the North Carolina House of Representatives that doesn't outlaw abortion, but does put several restrictions on those who would provide and receive one.  Among them are a mandatory 24 hour waiting period and the requirement for the mother to view an ultrasound of her unborn child.  These seem to be reasonable restrictions, in that they provide a cooling off period and a way for the mother to make an fully informed decision about what an abortion entails.

Pro-abortion forces are predictably up in arms that any legislative body would dare to restrict access to a procedure that they view as a right, but their argument against the legislation reveals a window into their worldview.  

The main argument seems to be that if passed, the legislation would result in 3,000 more births in North Carolina, costing the taxpayers an additional $7 million dollars in social services.  Now think about that.   What they are really saying is that some lives are unworthy to be lived simply because they might possibly but an additional burden on society.  The fact that they believe the restrictions will result in more births says that they know that abortion is the taking of a human life, that once a mother sees an ultrasound,  97% choose to carry to term.

This is a dangerous worldview for any society to adopt.  We have seen the results in Nazi Germany when the Germans decided which lives were unworthy to be lived and exterminated 6 million people.  It is a utilitarian view of life that inevitably raises man to the level of being his own god in deciding who lives and who dies based on some artificial criteria which may change depending on who is in power.

Quite a departure from the Christian world view that man is made in the image of God and therefore is valuable in and of himself, apart from any value judgment placed on his life by fellow human beings.  I am not from North Carolina, but I am cheering passage of the bill.

Planned Parenthood

The first inalienable, or God given right, mentioned in the document that founded our nation, the Declaration of Independence, is the right to life.  My question is:  If the right to life is a God given right, then is it proper for the government of a Republic founded on such a principle to use taxpayer money to fund the killing of the unborn?

That is exactly what our government is doing as it uses public money to fund Planned Parenthood to the tune of $360 million dollars a year.  Republicans recently  had a chance to strip this funding  from the 20011 budget but, alas, caved in to the Democrats and allowed the funding to remain.

Planned Parenthood claims that abortions only make up about 3 percent of its total services, but as it turns out, that is a complete lie.  In 2009, it provided 332,278 abortions, more that a quarter of all abortions performed in the US  that year and a 14.7 increase over 2006.  Planned Parenthood also provided prenatal services to 7,022 women and referred just 977 for adoption.  It provided abortion services to over 97 percent of its pregnant clients in 2009. 

Why the discrepancy between their claim of 3 percent and the actual facts?  The claim is a gimmick.  The group skews the numbers by counting individual appointments as multiple visits ranging anywhere from 5 to 20.   This waters down the percentage of abortions as Planned Parenthood tries to appear to be merely a prenatal health care provider.  It doesn' work for anyone who takes a closer look.  For every adoption referral in 2009, Planned Parenthood performed 340 abortions.  Providing abortion services is the group's reason for existence.

If abortion is not the taking of a human life, then no excuse is necessary.  If it is the taking of a human life, then no excuse is sufficient.  Any biology 101 student knows that life begins at conception, so what is our government doing in aiding the killing of the most innocent among us?