June is the traditional month for weddings. Marriage expectations are high. Most brides and grooms expect to have all their hopes and needs met by the other. Is this possible?
In God’s perfect world, yes. In a fallen and sin-filled world, no.
Marriage was instituted by God. It is a union of two completely different people — male and female — for the benefit of children and society. It is a relationship that models the agape love of patience, kindness, selflessness, and faithfulness. It builds family and community. It mentors the vibrant and compatible roles of manhood and womanhood for generations to come.
History explains. After God created man, He said, “It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him” (Genesis 2:18). God wanted man to know that he was not yet complete. He had no mate appropriate for him and he had no means of procreation.
“Fit for him” literally means “like his opposite.” Imagine that. She fit perfectly with him, yet they were not the same — anatomically, hormonally, or psychologically. With God, they would procreate new life. She would be the vessel for the young one he would protect.
Equal, but different, the man and woman would unite in a partnership. Their unique character traits and personalities would harmonize. In God’s order of creation, a “helper” (Hebrew: ezer) would be an “assistant” and “ally.” The ezerwoman would not be dissimilar from the “Helper” sent by Jesus to the disciples. That Helper, the Holy Spirit, was called a “comforter,” “advocate,” and “encourager.”
The woman would know joy and contentment in her role of “helper.” She would find limitless possibilities in her multi-faceted vocation. She would help man to be a better steward over all creation. She would help nurture all the living. The man would rejoice in his completeness. He would love the woman built from his rib and guard her life as if it were his own. He would serve not his own glory, but the glory of God (to her benefit).
In the first marriage, there was no fear. Resentment. Envy. Frustration. Anger. Heartache. Disappointment.
Everything changed when the first husband and wife sinned against God. They were equally guilty, yet the consequences of their sins were as different as their natures.
Today’s bride and groom may expect to have all their needs met. But, in a fallen and imperfect world, no person can do that for another. Only God can and will fulfill our deepest needs. At the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton, the Bishop of London noted, “As the reality of God has faded from so many lives in the West, there has been a corresponding inflation of expectations that personal relations alone will supply meaning and happiness in life. This is to load our partner with too great of burden.”
Let us ease the burden with encouragement. Sin distorts God’s perfect plan, but the original design is still in place. It serves well when trusted.
- A woman “fit for him” remains a husband’s opposite. She is made to think, act, and love differently. Sin complicates those differences. Not only are they male and female, they have contrasting personality traits, quirks, familial histories, and experiences that may threaten to tear the marriage apart. But, there is another choice. With forgiveness and practice, husband and wife can merge their best qualities for the benefit of a stronger marriage. They can stop playing “me against you” and become “we.” They can unite as a team for the sake of their children.
- A woman’s role still complements the man’s. She is his “helper.” Regardless of sin and circumstances, she has a choice: to help him be a good or poor steward; to encourage or discourage; to build up or tear down; to connect him to children or disconnect. He has the choice to use God’s Word for life, warn against death, and cover his wife and children with his faithfulness — or not.
Equal, yet different, husband and wife have an example to follow.
Jesus is equal to God. He is God yet, in His role as the Son, He submitted to His Father’s will in order to be the Savior of the world. A wife who respects her husband and submits to his appropriate leadership is really submitting to God. A man who loves his wife as Christ loved the Church is submitting himself to God.
Marriage expectations? On this earth, husband and wife won’t make each other completely happy. Won’t meet each others every need. Warm fuzzies will fade. But, Jesus in a marriage makes two “better than one.” Opposites who glorify God rather than self change the environment. Root deeper. Build stronger. Persist against every foe.
A threefold cord (God, man and woman) is not quickly broken” (Eccl. 4:12).
Read Full Post »
Some would claim I am guilty of heterosexism if I do not embrace the practice of homosexuality or the teaching of the homosexual lifestyle to children in school.
Ezerwoman's Blog 
USDA Gay-Sensitivity Training
Posted in Commentaries of others, Culture Shifts, Life issues, tagged " homosexuality, children, cultural transformation, Elaine Donnelly, family, gender diversity, homosexual sensitivity training, LGBT, men, military, national defense, Pentagon, The Washington Times, Tom Vilsack, USDA, women on June 27, 2011| 1 Comment »
Vilsack, apparently still in the bubble, is pushing for an intense brand of homosexual sensitivity training. The Washington Times (6-19-2011) reports that this training would include a discussion that compares “heterosexism” to racism. People who view marriage as being between only one man and one woman are guilty of “heterosexism.”
The “push for the training” is coming from Vilsack. Why? Does he have too much time on his hands? Is there not enough work to be done with farm service agencies? Food and nutrition? The forest service? Rural development? Food safety and inspection? What does agriculture have to do with homosexual sensitivity training?
Vilsack has launched a department-wide “cultural transformation” that includes a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) Special Emphasis Program. It appears that this program goes far beyond any training now being done by the Pentagon. The USDA’s program is called “groundbreaking [and a] model for other agencies.” It “delves more into gay issues and terminology. It also justifies pro-homosexual political positions.”
Rowan Scarborough, writing for The Washington Times, explains that if the Obama administration accepts this kind of homosexual sensitivity training “it could mean more sessions for military service members already undergoing gay-sensitivity indoctrination. Critics fear additional gay-oriented training would add an unnecessary burden for combat troops and encourage some to leave.”
Elaine Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness, has long opposed the repeal of the military’s ban on acknowledged gays. She told the Washington Times, “There are disturbing implications for national defense in the USDA’s development of a ‘groundbreaking’ training program that is to become a model for other federal agencies.” She notes that “thousands of experienced troops, starting with chaplains and people of faith who do not support LGBT ideology and activism” would be driven out of the military.
Vilsack’s bubble of political correctness will burst. Of that I am sure. But, before that happens, I wonder. How many people and institutions — including the family — will his “cultural transformation” affect?
Why is it more important for the USDA to be a leader in gender-identity diversity training than growing food to feed the world?
Read Full Post »