Will it be Vidiotic?

Jim Daly is motivated now, as are the host of regular characters in the business of family and marriage ministry. My inbox was overwhelmed with email blasts telling us to keep the faith, keep hoping, and to “stand with them” in the ongoing battle to save the family.

Family Life has Men Stepping Up. I’ve posted the link before. I would expect an extra “re” to be added to Rainey’s call for men to re-commit to the principles he includes in the Men Stepping Up project. Focus on The Family, too, is invested in it to pull off a coincident major initiative that is directly aimed at the SCOTUS decision.

FOTF is picking the low fruit afforded them by the courts decision. I do not know if they have figured out that it is bad form to flaunt evangelical feminism on the front end, or, more likely, its just a coincidence. Today’s email from Jim Daly includes a link to a video about their new initiative called The Family Project. In his email Daly says:

It is time for everyone who supports the natural definition of marriage to recommit and affirm the sanctity of their own marriages. We must humbly confess the damage we have done to marriage by our own collective careless treatment of it. As we continue to distance ourselves from God’s design for marriage and family, Christians will need to take their oath and commitment to marriage more seriously. Though the divorce rate among committed Christians is lower than among the general populace, it remains far too high.

OK. But we have heard it all before. When you watch the video you will see in the selection of news clips make reference to fathers messing up kids lives. What do we expect from them in this five million dollar documentary?

More of the same.

Plus, they need money to fight SSM. Courageous, no?

I want to, but cannot pass judgement on the documentary before it is aired. Lately I’ve confessed to being cynical often. It would be great to have that shoved down my throat.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Will it be Vidiotic?

  1. “It is time for everyone who supports the natural definition of marriage to recommit and affirm the sanctity of their own marriages. We must humbly confess the damage we have done to marriage by our own collective careless treatment of it. As we continue to distance ourselves from God’s design for marriage and family, Christians will need to take their oath and commitment to marriage more seriously. Though the divorce rate among committed Christians is lower than among the general populace, it remains far too high. ”

    The problem is, those who would recommit and affirm are mostly those who wouldn’t get a divorce in the first place. It’s all well and good for those with decent to good to great marriages to stand up and be counted, but the problem is in how those very same people will often encourage another to get divorced through the “forgiveness before the fact” doctrine.

    The only thing that’s going to do anything about the divorce epidemic is for us to move away from the idea that it’s OK. Obviously I’m not advocating condemming or shaming those who have been divorced. But at the same time, we’ve got to do away with this “it’s OK god will forgive you” nonsense. Yes He will forgive you, but no, it’s absolutely not OK.

  2. I agree with Chaz’ comment above; that those who would commit would likely not divorce in the first place.

    I don’t really think much one way or another of the SCOTUS decision. DOMA was signed into law sometime in the middle 1990s and did absolutely nothing to defend marriage; and had zero impact on the decline of the family. A better proactive legal solution would be to repeal laws like IMBRA and have a reasonable and lower standard AOC law so that the femihags and Ameroskanks actually have some genuine competition; the same way we break up economic stagnation and decline.

  3. Marriage in Powhatan society meant that a man was able to be a provider for his wife and family – which had to be proven to the prospective in-laws. Marriage indicated a man had truly reached maturity and that a woman was able to bear children. Once a man found a woman he wanted to marry, he had to attract her interest and, if she still lived with her parents, gain their approval. He did so through gifts of food, which showed his ability to provide. Once an agreement was reached, the man negotiated and paid a bride wealth to her parents, as a way of compensating her family for their loss of valuable labor and for her child-bearing potential. The bride wealth served as a public declaration of the chosen woman’s value. Soon after the man procured the necessary household items (a house, mortar and pestle, mats, pots, and bedding) and the bride wealth was paid, the bride was brought to the groom’s house. There, her father, guardian or “chief friend” joined the couple’s hands together. A string of beads was measured to the man’s arm length and then broken over the couple’s hands (the beads were given to the person who brought the bride). The couple were now married, and expected to be for life, and a celebration took place. Divorce was possible, however, in which case any children were possibly split between their parents according to their sex. Another type of marriage, a marriage by contract, was a temporary agreement made between a Powhatan man and woman that usually lasted one year. Each year, the contractual union was either renewed or ended and the two were free to marry others. If, however, the allotted time passed without the union being ended or re-negotiated the couple were married permanently.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s