What is marriage?... from 'Irreplaceable' in theaters May 6!

 

What God Has Joined Together: John Piper

Greg Koukl - Can Marriage Be Divided into Secular and Religious Institutions?

Taken from our blog, Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason answers the question, "Can marriage be divided into religious and secular institutions as a solution to the same-sex marriage debate?". For more information, visit str.org.

Marriage, Divorce, and Singleness (1 Corinthians 7:1-40) John MacArthur

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/80-359

Open your Bible to 1 Corinthians chapter 7 and we're going to do something that I don't do very often, we're going to cover 40 verses tonight. So you're going to have to stay with us on this and this is going to be a very, very rich experience.

We have looked the last two Sunday mornings at Mark chapter 10 at our Lord's teaching on the subject of marriage and divorce. And we now come to the Apostle Paul who helps us with some of the implications of what our Lord taught. And actually, he even expands on what our Lord taught and let me show you something of the essence of this by pointing out a few verses in chapter 7....

Dating, Courtship, and Marriage - Paul Washer

Paul Washer talks about relationships and what a biblical marriage is all about.

http://hcmissions.com

Marriage Either Gets Bitter or Gets Better

You can bring life or death to that relationship by the words you choose. If we're not careful and don't seek the Holy Spirit, we can become bitter, and bitterness can mean death in a relationship because it grows. Pastor Mark talks about how his own bitterness was the issue that most negatively affected his and Grace's marriage for the longest period of time, and he regrets and grieves how this came out in his sermons during that time and asks for forgiveness.

This clip is excerpted from the sermon "Taking Out the Trash," part 5 of the Real Marriage sermon series. It was preached by Pastor Mark Driscoll at Mars Hill Church West Seattle and released online February 13, 2012.

Watch the full sermon here: http://marshill.com/media/real-marriage/taking-out-the-trash

For more on Real Marriage the book, written by Pastor Mark and Grace Driscoll, visit: http://pastormark.tv/books/real-marriage

How To Not Marry a Coward

This question was answered by Pastor Mark Driscoll and his wife Grace during the sermon Marriage and Women from the Trial series at Mars Hill Church. For more from this sermon, visit http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/trial/marriage-and-women

Reverse-Engineering Your Life and Marriage (Sermon Preview)

The most important day of your life and marriage is the last day. What does it take to finish well? The short answer: you both are going to need Jesus.

This clip is a preview of the upcoming March 25 sermon "Reverse-Engineering Your Life and Marriage," part 11, the last sermon in the Real Marriage series. In this round-table-style sermon, Pastor Mark and Grace talk with a few couples who've been married for decades about what they've learned about living a life and marriage that glorify God.

Come see the sermon at any Mars Hill church this Sunday:
http://marshill.com/locations_and_services

Catch up on other sermons in the Real Marriage series here:
http://marshill.com/media/real-marriage

Piper, Carson, and Keller on Sustaining the Covenant of Marital Love

What sustains the marital bond and affections over the long haul? Three men with a combined 116 years of marriage reflect on what they've learned from God's Word and others along with their experience.
Don Carson, Tim Keller, and John Piper offer insight on falling in love again and again and the ground of covenant in which the flower of love grows. In marriage, man and woman change, but their promise does not, sustained by the God who enacted his covenant between Christ and the church.
As Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote to a young married couple, "It is not your love that sustains the marriage, but from now on, the marriage that sustains your love."

For further reading, check out the Lewis Smedes article Keller cites from Christianity Today and read the full Stanley Hauerwas quote in context. Then consider picking up these two powerful books on loving, lasting marriages:

• Paul David Tripp, What Did You Expect: Redeeming the Realities of Marriage
• Dave Harvey, When Sinners Say "I Do": Discovering the Power of the Gospel for Marriage

Collin Hansen serves as editorial director for The Gospel Coalition. He is the co-author of A God-Sized Vision: Revival Stories That Stretch and Stir. You can follow him on Twitter.

Should I Marry Someone Because of Outward Beauty? - Paul Washer & Tim Conway

If your a young person and thinking about marriage, then please hear this clip and don't make a wrong turn and pursue outward beauty, instead of pursuing someone who fears the Lord.

MP3: http://illbehonest.com/Should-I-Marry-Someone-Because-of-Outward-Beauty-Paul-...

How to Safeguard a Marriage

This clip is taken from the sermon "Jesus and the Law," preached by Pastor Mark Driscoll at the Mars Hill Church Ballard campus in Seattle, Washington, on March 13th, 2011.

Self-Control, Passion, and Marriage

But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self--control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn. (1 Corinthians 7:8--9)

These verses answer the question, "Should those who were married and divorced before becoming Christians remarry?" No doubt that was a key question in the Corinthian church. Formerly married people came to salvation in Christ and asked if they now had the right to marry someone else. Paul's response here is uniquely fitted to those who want to know their options.

Paul is speaking to people who were divorced before coming to Christ. They wanted to know if they had the right to marry. His word to them is that it is good for them who are now free of marriage to remain even as I. By that statement Paul affirms that he was formerly married. Because marriage seems to have been required for membership in the Sanhedrin, to which Paul may once have belonged, because he had been so devoutly committed to Pharisaic tradition (Gal. 1:14), and because he refers to one who could have been his wife's mother (Rom. 16:13), we may assume that he was once married. His statement here to the previously married confirms that—even as I. Likely he was a widower. He does not identify with the virgins but with the unmarried and widows, that is, with the formerly married.

The point is that those who are single when converted to Christ should know that it is good for them to stay that way. There is no need to rush into marriage. Many well--meaning Christians are not content to let people remain single. The urge to play cupid and matchmaker can be strong, but mature believers must resist it. Marriage is not necessary or superior to singleness, and it limits some potential for service to Christ (vv. 32--34).

Later in the chapter Paul advised believers to remain as they were. Staying single was not wrong, and becoming married or staying married were not wrong. But "in view of the present distress" the Corinthian believers were experiencing, it seemed much better to stay as they were (7:25--28).

Deciding about marriage obviously is more difficult for the person who has strong sexual desires but who has no immediate prospect for a husband or wife. It is never God's will for Christians to marry unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14), but neither is it right just to marry the first believer who will say yes. Though we may want very much to be married, we should be careful. Strong feelings of any sort tend to dull judgment and make one vulnerable and careless.

There are several things that Christians in this dilemma ought to do. First, they should not simply seek to be married, but should seek a person they can love, trust, and respect, letting marriage come as a response to that commitment of love. People who simply want to get married for the sake of getting married run a great risk of marrying the wrong person. Second, it is fine to be on the lookout for the "right person," but the best way to find the right person is to be the right person. If believers are right with God and it is His will for them to be married He will send the right person—and never too late.

If, however, a single believer did not have self--control, that person should seek to marry. If a Christian is single but does not have the gift of singleness and is being strongly tempted sexually, he or she should pursue marriage. Let them marry in the Greek is in the aorist imperative, indicating a strong command. "Get married," Paul says, for it is better to marry than to burn. The term means "to be inflamed," and is best understood as referring to strong passion (cf. Rom. 1:27). A person cannot live a happy life, much less serve the Lord, if he is continually burning with sexual desire—even if the desire never results in actual immorality. And in a society such as Corinth's, or ours, in which immorality is so prevalent and accepted, it is especially difficult not to succumb to temptation.

I believe that once a Christian couple decides to get married they should do it fairly soon. In a day of lowered standards, free expression, and constant suggestiveness, it is extremely difficult to stay sexually pure. The practical problems of an early marriage are not nearly as serious as the danger of immorality.

http://www.macarthurcommentaries.com

Winston Smith - What does a healthy marriage look like?

http://www.ccef.org/

What Really Matters in Marriage

What determines the quality of your marriage? Dave Harvey explains in this overview of chapter one: "What Really Matters in Marriage."

For more information about the book "When Sinners Say 'I Do,'" visit www.SovereignGraceMinistries.org.

Videos on "When Sinners Say 'I Do'"

From Justin Taylor @ http://theologica.blogspot.com

Sovereign Grace Ministries has set up a YouTube page of videos related to Dave Harvey's book, When Sinners Say "I Do": Discovering the Power of the Gospel for Marriage. Here are the videos:

Why I Wrote This Book

02:37

Why a book on marriage? And why talk so much about sin? Dave Harvey explains.

Chapter 1: What Really Matters in Marriage
02:41

What determines the quality of your marriage? Dave Harvey explains in this overview of chapter one: "What Really Matters in Marriage."

Chapters 2-4
02:29

Often the deepest conflict is the one we're not aware of, and our fiercest enemy is within our own hearts. Dave Harvey points us to the only hope for victory in this overview of chapters two through four.

Chapter 4: Taking It Out for a Spin
03:44

What actually causes conflict in marriage? You may be surprised at the answer in this overview of chapter four.

Chapter 6: Forgiveness, Full and Free
03:37

Is restoration possible after sin devastates a marriage? Hear one couple's story in this overview of chapter six.

Chapter 7: The Spouse in Sin
03:18

Growth in holiness is not a solo project. In this overview of chapter seven, Dave Harvey explains how to humbly, patiently, and courageously lead your spouse to repentance.

Chapter 8: Stubborn Grace
04:28

God's grace doesn't just bring you to conversion, then leave you on your own. In this overview of chapter eight, Dave Harvey explains how the grace of God provides staying power for your life and your marriage.

Chapter 9: Concerning Sex
03:01

Sex. It's a topic that has everyone's attention. But it's easy to forget that this topic has God's attention as well. In this (G-rated) overview of chapter nine, Dave Harvey explains what the gospel has to do with this part of marriage.

Chapter 10: When Sinners Say Goodbye
04:12

It's been said that all we need to do is live long enough, and we'll be bereaved. In this overview of chapter ten, Dave Harvey talks about maintaining hope when "death do us part" actually happens.

Does Marriage Matter?

By Albert Mohler @ http://www.albertmohler.com

The "My Turn" column in each week's issue of Newsweek is always one of the most interesting features in the magazine, and it is often the first page I read. The January 14, 2008 edition featured a column that demands attention -- and has attracted plenty.

In her article, "Yes to Love, No to Marriage," Bonnie Eslinger writes of choosing love but insists that she has absolutely no need of marriage. "I am a 42-year-old woman who has lived life mostly on my own terms," she explains. "I have never sought a husband and have still experienced intense, affirming love. I have explored the world and myself and sought understanding, knowledge and a sense of how I can best contribute. Ten years ago I left a New York career to return to California and pursue a writer's life."

She also became a foster mom to a teenage girl . . . and then she met Jeff. As she recalls, "Meeting Jeff--an intelligent, creative, thoughtful man--became the icing on the rich cake of a life not wasted cruising singles bars and pining over lost loves."

As the relationship moved forward, Jeff thought of marriage and then asked Bonnie to marry him. Here is how she tells the story:

Last year Jeff asked me to marry him, and I willingly gave my heart to the intent of his question. We are committed to spending our future together, pursuing our dreams and facing life's challenges in partnership.

Yet I do not need a piece of paper from the state to strengthen my commitment to Jeff. I do not believe in a religion that says romantic, committed love is moral only if couples pledge joint allegiance to God.

Bonnie Eslinger willingly gave her heart "the intent of his question," she insists, but not to marriage. Her explanation is straightforward -- she has no need of "a piece of paper from the state" and is not a believer in any religion that would demand that romance, sex, and "committed love" be restricted to marriage -- a couple's "joint allegiance to God."

In one sense, the column is not shocking. Rates of heterosexual cohabitation are growing annually. Marriage has been subverted by easy divorce, pummeled in the mass culture and in entertainment, confused through debates over same-sex relationships, and sidelined by a generation that is extending adolescence past age thirty.

In another sense, Bonnie Eslinger's column is surely noteworthy for its candor -- and its evasions.

Her candor is bracing at points. Consider this section:

I don't need a white dress to feel pretty, and I have no desire to pretend I'm virginal. I don't need to have Jeff propose to me as if he's chosen me. I don't need a ring as a daily reminder to myself or others that I am loved. And I don't need Jeff to say publicly that he loves me, because he says it privately, not just in words but in daily actions.

Few paragraphs offer such eloquent testimony to the absolute victory of personal autonomy as an ideal. The first-person pronoun appears no less than eleven times in that short paragraph.

Where is Jeff? Bonnie Eslinger argues that she responded positively to "the intent of his question" when he proposed marriage. But, if marriage was his question, how can his "intent" be so easily reduced to cohabitation?

Marriage is not primarily about what we as individuals think we want or need. It is about a central public commitment that the society needs, that couples need, that children need, and yes, that the spouses need. Marriage is a public institution, not merely a private commitment. It identifies the couple as a pair committed to lifelong marriage and thus to be respected in this commitment. The fact that our society has weakened marriage offers only further incentive to get it right and to strengthen this vital institution.

The traditions of the wedding ceremony are important as a part of solemnizing and recognizing this covenanted relationship -- but the traditions are expendable. Marriage is not. There is a universe of difference between a private promise and a public pledge. Marriage is about a public vow made by the man to the woman and the woman to the man whereby they become now husband and wife.

Bonnie Eslinger's column has sparked controversy on both sides of the cultural divide. Ironically, one interesting piece of testimony to the enduring power of marriage is the fact that, even in 2008, this column has met resistance as well as agreement. There are things we really cannot not know, and one of these truths is that marriage really does matter.

__________________

We discussed this issue on Monday's edition of The Albert Mohler Program [listen here].

Marriage -- There Is No Alternative

By Albert Mohler @ http://www.albertmohler.com

The fact that many young women are recapturing a vision of virginity until marriage has attracted a considerable amount of media attention. Media coverage has been devoted to books by authors such as Wendy Shalit and Dawn Eden and to programs encouraging sexual abstinence until marriage. The force of our cultural and moral revolution is immediately apparent in the fact that these developments are considered newsworthy. Since when did virginity make news?

These developments have also attracted detractors, and one of the most revealing critiques of the virginity movement comes from feminism. Writing in the current issue of The Nation, Nona Willis-Aronowitz suggests that these movements are efforts to turn back the achievements of the feminist movement and, at the same time, prove that feminism has not "finished its job."

After reviewing the new emphasis on virginity (especially Shalit's work), Willis-Aronowitz writes:

You have to be living under a rock not to notice that casual sex, once an expression of a subversive impulse, is now certifiably pop culture. Since the 1960s, sex--like everything from rock music to the psychedelic aesthetic--has been mainstreamed. But it's a dubious claim that these images and ideals are really breeding mindless sex machines. "If we have to choose between emotional repression and sexual repression...then a better trade-off seems to be fewer partners and more intimacy," concludes Shalit. But the idea that a woman who has lots of sexual partners forgoes her chance of finding "intimacy" and a "soul mate" is not only sanctimonious--it's just not true. Ninety-five percent of Americans have sex before marriage, so chances are a good number of the bikini-clad women making out with strangers at Cancun foam parties will be married with kiddies at the age of 30. The hookup culture isn't a sign of a loveless, commitment-free society--it doesn't even provide an alternative to matrimony.

Interestingly, Willis-Aronowitz concedes her own concern about some aspects of modern sexuality. She finds a 10-year-old girl in sexually provocative undergarments to be "undeniably creepy." Her own stomach "does sink a little when I see one of my peers woozily stripping her clothes off on a Girls Gone Wild commercial." She does not want Paris Hilton to be her daughter's role model.

At the same time, she sees the virginity movements as "retro," not progressive:

Shalit's so-called "rebels" amid our "pornified" culture may be technically raging against the mainstream, but they are surely just repackaging age-old ideas as defiance. They appear in the form of 16-year-old rappers preaching abstinence, Orthodox Jewish women getting married before even touching their husbands and a teenager getting her knickers in a twist over reading the word "[removed]" in her assigned reading. Most retro about the call for modesty is that it once again implies that women's actions are somehow responsible for men's. Since men simply cannot control themselves, poor things, women should shroud their bodies in cloth and desperately guard their virginity so as to quash men's dishonorable intentions. These are the strong, "empowered" women who will quell the supposedly adverse effects of our sex-saturated culture.

Willis-Aronowitz resists bringing morality into the conversation at all. Morality is itself quite retro in her world. Sex is about power and autonomy. Women have a right (even a responsibility?) to be as sexually adventuresome and promiscuous as men. It is all about power and "picking up on the element of fun that sexiness can bring to everyday life."

The most interesting part of Willis-Aronowitz's critique is her assessment that feminism has thus far failed in a central task -- that of providing a genuine alternative to marriage. Citing feminist theorist Ariel Levy, she argues:

The culture has not yet carved out a space for women to indulge their own fantasies rather than to fulfill those of men. Feminism has not finished its job; a version of nonmushy, nonmarital sex that makes women feel good about themselves is still hard to achieve.

On closer analysis, it is the new movements' focus on marriage that is her real concern. How fascinating that she would indict feminism for its failure -- for now -- to create "a version of nonmushy, nonmarital sex that makes women feel good about themselves."

So "nonmushy, nonmarital sex" is a goal of postmodern feminism? In reality, it is an old story.

Utopian ideologies have sought in vain for an alternative to marriage for centuries. Plato's original "Utopia" subverted marriage and the family in terms of the polis. Marxism defied the marriage covenant and sought to replace it with an ultimate commitment to the state. In its later stages, Nazi Germany redefined sexual morality in order to breed the "Master Race" without the constraints of marriage. The feminism of the sixties, we remember, looked to marriage and the traditional family as domestic "concentration camps."

Now, Nona Willis-Aronowitz wants feminism to create "an alternative to matrimony" -- a "version of nonmushy, nonmarital sex that makes women feel good about themselves."

Sorry, Ms. Willis-Aronowitz. It isn't out there. There is no alternative to marriage. History is littered with shattered experiments and the scarred lives of those who have believed otherwise.

_______________________

Wendy Shalit's work is cited here but not endorsed. Dawn Eden appeared as a guest on The Albert Mohler Program on January 9, 2007 with guest host Russell Moore and again on April 23, 2007 as my guest in the studio. Her book, The Thrill of the Chaste: Finding Fulfillment While Keeping Your Clothes On is a manifesto for the new movement.

The Future of Marriage

From Melinda @ http://str.typepad.com

David Blankenhorn's new book The Future of Marriage is a thorough, factual argument for traditional marriage. Blankenhorn concludes, based on evidence and studies, that "gay marriage goes along with the erosion, not the shoring up, of the institution of marriage." Tinkering with the marriage laws doesn't strengthen marriage, it weakens it, and ultimately harms children who marriage is primarily meant to nurture because marriage as an institution is weakened.

In this short presentation of his argument, Blankenhorn uses studies from a number of countries to show the correlation between the changes of marriage and family law and the devaluing of marriage itself.

Certain trends in values and attitudes tend to cluster with each other and with certain trends in behavior. A rise in unwed childbearing goes hand in hand with a weakening of the belief that people who want to have children should get married. High divorce rates are encountered where the belief in marital permanence is low. More one-parent homes are found where the belief that children need both a father and a mother is weaker. A rise in nonmarital cohabitation is linked at least partly to the belief that marriage as an institution is outmoded. The legal endorsement of gay marriage occurs where the belief prevails that marriage itself should be redefined as a private personal relationship. And all of these marriage-weakening attitudes and behaviors are linked. Around the world, the surveys show, these things go together.

He points out that marriage is the most pro-child institution, the best way for children to be raised. Yes, children can be raised well in other situations and sometimes have to be. But as we plan as a society shouldn't our desire be to offer children the best environment when possible? The best is what government should support and encourage.

Though many same-sex advocates openly admit that the goal is the devolution of marriage itself, even those with the best of motives in advocating change should be able to face the facts that their efforts do not contribute to the strength of marriage itself.

[T]he deep logic of same-sex marriage is clearly consistent with what scholars call deinstitutionalization--the overturning or weakening of all of the customary forms of marriage, and the dramatic shrinking of marriage's public meaning and institutional authority.

Blankenhorn appeared on Dennis Prager's show.

Marriage: Is It Only Forgive and Forbear, or Also Confront?

By John Piper @ http://www.desiringgod.org/

Last Sunday’s sermon was originally misnamed “Marriage: Confronting, Forgiving, Forbearing.” In the end, I struck the word confronting—not because it shouldn’t happen, but because I had no time. So this is what I would have said if I there had been time. This will anticipate what is coming, Lord willing, this Sunday (2-25-07).

Focusing on forgiving and forbearing might give the impression that none of our sinful traits or annoying idiosyncrasies ever changes. So all we can do is forgive and forbear. What I plan to show from the Bible this coming weekend is that God gives grace not only to forgive and to forbear, but also to change so that less forgiving and forbearing are needed. That too is a gift of grace. Grace is not just power to return good for evil, but also power to do less evil. Even power to be less bothersome.

But I have approached this in a very intentionally roundabout way. The emphasis on forgiveness and forbearance has come first, because I believe it is the essential rock-solid foundation on which the call for change can be heard with hope and security rather than fear and a sense of being threatened. Only when a wife or husband feels that the other is totally committed to them—even if he or she doesn’t change—can the call for change feel like grace rather than an ultimatum.

But now I am emphasizing that marriage should not be—and, God willing, need not be—a static stretch of time inhabited by changeless personalities in durable conflict. Even that is better than divorce in God’s eyes, and has a glory of its own. But it is not the best picture of Christ and the church. The durability tells the truth about Christ and the church. The unwillingness to change does not.

In Christ’s relationship to the church, he is clearly seeking the transformation of his bride into something morally and spiritually beautiful. We will see this on Sunday from Ephesians 5:26-27. This implies that the husband, who is to love like Christ, bears a unique responsibility for the moral and spiritual growth of his wife—which means that over time she will change.

If a husband is loving and wise, this will feel to a humble wife like she is being served, not humiliated. Christ died to purify his bride. Moreover, Christ not only died to sanctify his bride, he goes on speaking to her in his word with a view to applying his sacrifice to her for her transformation. Similarly, the wise and loving husband seeks to speak in a way that brings his wife more and more into conformity to Christ. (More on this when we talk about headship).

Submission, I will argue later, does not mean that a wife cannot seek the transformation of her husband, even while respecting him as her head—her leader, protector, and provider. There are several reasons I say this. One is that prayer is something that the church does toward God through Christ with a view to asking him to do things a certain way. If we are sick, we ask him for healing. If we are hungry, we ask for our daily bread. If we are lost, we ask for direction. And so on. Since we believe in the absolute sovereignty of Christ to govern all things, this means that we look at the present situation that he has ordained, and we ask him to change it.

This is only an analogy to what the wife does toward her husband. We never “confront” Jesus with his imperfection and seek his change. He has no imperfections. But we do seek from him changes in the situation he has brought about. That is what petitionary prayer is. So wives, on this analogy, will ask their husbands that some things be changed in the way he is doing things.

But the main reason we can say that wives, as well as husbands, should seek their husbands’ transformation is that husbands are only similar to Christ in the relationship with their wives. They are not Christ. And one of the main differences is that husbands need to change and Christ doesn’t. When Paul says, “The husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church” (Ephesians 5:23), the word as does not mean that husbands are identical to Christ in authority or perfection or wisdom or grace or any other way. They are not “equal to” Christ; They are “as” Christ. They are, unlike Christ, sinful and finite and fallible. They need to change.

Wives are not only submissive wives. They are also loving sisters. There is a unique way for a submissive wife to be a caring sister toward her imperfect brother-husband. She will, from time to time, follow Galatians 6:1 in his case: “If anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness.” She will do that for him.

Both of them will obey Matthew 18:15 as necessary, and will do so in the unique demeanor and context called for by headship and submission: “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone.”

So from these and other observations that could be made from the New Testament, I hope it is clear that marriage is not merely forgiving and forbearing. It is also confronting—in loving and wise ways formed by the calling of headship and submission. This is what we will be dealing with in the coming message. I plead for your prayers.