Tag Archives: Family

Commentary

Studies show: families that pray together are stronger and closer

Leave a comment
A family praying and reading the Bible
A family praying and reading the Bible (not sure what the baby is thinking though)

Here’s an article that I found on the Family Studies blog.

It says: (links to studies removed)

A lot of research has been devoted to the question of whether religion is a force for good among today’s families, and while the findings are mixed, studies have found plenty of reason to believe that faith can be a powerful adhesive for families working hard not to come undone. Regular religious service attendance is tied to lower divorce rates, for example, and religious institutions can be powerful intermediaries in helping families in crisis and promoting chastity and fidelity, which in turn affect social ills like out-of-wedlock childbearing and divorce.

[…]That individual prayer can improve the lives of those who undertake it is a well-documented fact supported by even the secular, medical world. Its benefits can include reduced stress, increased self-awareness, better communication, and a more empathetic and forgiving attitude towards others.

It’s hardly a stretch to suggest those benefits would expand to families that then pray together. For starters, family prayer time is quality time together, time not spent in front of the television or a smartphone, but rather, time spent communicating on a deeply personal level. One study found that children with parents who pray more than once daily report better relationships with their parents, even if that prayer is not done with their children, implying that there is something contagious about the positive effects of prayer in family life. Another study found a positive correlation between increased trust and prayer time between couples.

Other sociologists have argued that joint prayer can be a powerful mediation tool that leads couples to be more forgiving. As Mark Butler, a professor of marriage and family therapy at Brigham Young University, put it: “When people pray (about tensions in their relationship) they are helped to see their part in the problem. They’re helped to see what they can do themselves to make a difference. And they are helped to soften. All these things help with conflict resolution.”

The nice thing about prayer and church attendance is that it is an opportunity for people to tune the world out and think about the big things. It’s a time to think about other people, for one thing. It’s also a good time to be humble and acknowledge the things that are out of your control.

Right now, a few of my friends have been telling me about some of the problems they are facing as a result of the declining economy. We had only 0.5% GDP growth last quarter – awfully close to a recession. I have friends who have lost work hours, friends who have lose their health care, friends who are facing liberal professors in graduate school, friends who either cannot find work or whose spouses cannot find work. And lots of friends who have projects and exams. That’s a lot of people to think about and care about. I frequently talk to God about the problems that other people are facing and try to urge him to give them some help.

In case you are wondering how to pray to God, there is a good article about it on the Cold Case Christianity blog.

Here’s the practical part:

If you are a follower of Christ, you can have confidence that God will always say “yes” to the following requests:

Requests for Wisdom
“But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.” (James 1:5)

Requests for Forgiveness
“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9)

Requests for Salvation
“…for ‘whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.’” (Romans 10:13)

While God says “yes” to these kinds of requests, He often says “no” or “not yet” to other kinds of requests.

The most frequent thing I ask for is wisdom. Wisdom for me, wisdom for my friends. I like praying for wisdom for myself and others because it’s a sure thing, and I hate doing something that comes back to bite me later. I ask for God to help me to understand and accept the moral law, so that I make decisions that don’t come back to hurt me later.

The other thing I pray for a lot is forgiveness. This is a big no-no for atheists, because they don’t like to feel ashamed or obligated or “bad” because they are immature. But the truth is that God is knocking on the door of our hearts, each one of us, and we are not responding as much as we should. I often think of how much good I could do if I were not so selfish. I often choose to to do things that are fun instead of taking time to read the Bible or doing other things to learn more about who God is. And I don’t think that I am doing as much to defend God’s interests as I could be doing. I have regrets about this, and I when I pray, I tell God about how I feel about not being as faithful to him as I wish I could be.

The most frequent way that I am thankful is by thanking God for the people who do things that are consistent with a Christian worldview. I like that Steven Crowder spoke to liberal students at the University of Massachusetts. I like that conservative Republicans introduce pro-life and pro-religious-liberty laws. I like that my friends in Ratio Christi do a good job at organizing apologetics events on university campuses. I try to pay attention to all this good news and I run down the list to God when I pray, reminding him to be looking out for those who are committed to sticking by him against the selfish secular leftists.

Commentary

Does God have a soul mate picked out for you to marry?

2 Comments
Does government provide incentives for people to get married?
Does God tell you through your feelings who you should marry?

OK, let’s start this post with a hilarious satire from the Babylon Bee.

It says:

Stressing the precariousness of the situation, inside sources confirmed Monday that a gridlock has been reached in the social lives of David Gall, 23, and Mark Cormier, 26, as both men are absolutely, 100% certain that God has personally instructed them to date local 22-year-old Stephanie Fair.

“I sought God’s will and He told me to date Stephanie,” Gall confidently declared to sources. “I know He did—there’s not a doubt in my mind.”

“God definitely told me to date Stephanie,” Cormier similarly asserted. “The signs He gave me were crystal-clear. What am I supposed to do, disobey God?”

Three discussion attempts between the two men have reportedly made no headway and have simply reinforced each man’s belief that the other lacks godliness and is possibly being influenced by demonic forces.

At publishing time, a fourth discussion was underway, and while neither man was open to the slightest possibility that perhaps God did not tell them to date Miss Fair, they seemed to be making a bit of progress as they collectively considered reexamining the Bible’s teachings on polygamy.

With that said, let’s look at this article from the leftist Huffington Post, of all places, which talks about what’s behind this soul-mate view of marriage.

Excerpt:

As millennial women, we were groomed for a white knight fantasy. From childhood favorites such as Snow White to adult rom-com staples such as How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days or Sleepless in Seattle, the media perpetuates a romantic storyline in which compatibility and lasting romance is something effortless, built on chance, sustained by good looks, fun dates and electric sexual chemistry. These story lines shape our expectations for romantic happiness. It is not enough to find someone with whom we are mostly compatible, who would make a good parent, with whom we could learn and grow wrinkly; now, we expect a perfect fit and an easy, instantaneous “connection.” In short, we want a soul mate. But it is this desire for a soul mate that is actually the undoing of our happy ending.

A “soul mate” is defined as one who is ideally suited to us, perfectly completes us, one with whom the relationship feels easy and natural. With them, a relationship is just “meant to be”…

Wow. That doesn’t sound like a good approach to me. Soul mate people want relationships to be free and easy. They never have to grow up, or give up anything. It’s just a transparent attempt to get out of the real work of self-sacrificial love. But real relationships involve responsibilities, expectations and obligations.

Does the “soul mate” approach work?

We heard that those who get married later and possess a college degree have fewer divorces and more stable marriages. So we spend our twenties trying to find ourselves through travel, accumulating degrees and building a career. Marriage will be the capstone of our achievements, and nothing less than tying the knot with a soul mate will suffice. But the tragic irony is that soul mate thinking makes us increasingly likely to divorce. A study of 1,400 married men and women shows that people who hold soul mate orientations are 150% more likely to end up divorced than those who do not.

The widespread cultural belief in “soul mate ideology” undermines our chances at happiness because it makes us passive receivers of idyllic romantic expectations. Further, it fosters self-centeredness; one rarely longs to be a soul mate for someone else, which would require effort. For this reason, believing in soul mates is one of the most dis-empowering belief systems we can adopt. As millennials, we pride ourselves on actively pursuing the life we want to live, rather than simply accepting whatever hand we are dealt. We are innovative, passionate, proactive and not afraid to take risks. Yet, there is a disconnect when it comes to our desire for lasting love. Though there are prospects around us, we forgo taking the concrete steps needed to build happy compatible relationships because we do not “feel a spark.” We are passively waiting on the sidelines for love to “happen,” and then wonder why it is so difficult.

I’ve always felt that the soul mate approach was the exact opposite to my noble plan-based approach. The soul-mate view won’t let you have a plan at all. And no one has any work to do as part of the plan.

Their solution is for people to work at compatibility:

Compatibility is something co-created through intentionality and conscious choice. It involves mutual sacrifice, effort and commitment for the sake of the other’s benefit. A recent study found that of the couples who demonstrate above average daily generosity, 50% of them report being “very happy” in marriage; among the low generosity scores, only 14% can say the same. As studies indicate, selflessness is required to create mutual compatibility. It is not instantaneous, nor does it usually begin with true love’s kiss.

We both know from experience that there are some you naturally connect with and others you do not. This is not a call towards forced attraction or companionship. But, our romantic futures should not be placed in the hands of blind chance. It is time we roll up our sleeves and shift our expectations from unattainable perfection to realistic romance, one that accounts for imperfection. We must understand that work in a relationship is a necessary key to success, rather than an indication of imminent failure. We will be letting go of a tired plot line that sets us up for disappointment and embracing an active role in our own unique story.

How refreshing to know that we do not have to be perfect to be lovable, and that our romantic success is not solely dependent on finding the “right” fit, but instead built through cultivating daily moments of generosity, sacrifice and conscious coupling.

I don’t think there is such a thing as a relationship that proceeds by magic, rather than by the hard work of the two people involved.

Polemics

Stephen Baskerville: five myths about no-fault divorce

1 Comment
Marriage and family
Marriage and family

From the Catholic News Agency.

Introduction:

Almost four decades after the “no-fault” divorce revolution began in California, misconceptions abound. Even the many books about divorce, including myriad self-help manuals, are full of inaccurate and misleading information. No public debate preceded the introduction of no-fault divorce laws in the 1970s, and no debate has taken place since.

Yet divorce-on-demand is exacting a devastating toll on our children, our social order, our economy, and even our constitutional rights. A recent study estimates the financial cost of divorce to taxpayers at $112 billion annually. Recent demands to legitimize same-sex marriage almost certainly follow from the divorce revolution, since gay activists readily acknowledge that they only desire to marry under the loosened terms that have resulted from the new divorce laws. Divorce also contributes to a dangerous increase in the power of the state over private life.

Here are the five myths about no-fault divorce:

  • No-fault divorce permitted divorce by mutual consent, thus making divorce less acrimonious
  • We cannot force people to remain married and should not try
  • No-fault divorce has led men to abandon their wives and children
  • When couples cannot agree or cooperate about matters like how the children should be raised, a judge must decide according to “the best interest of the child”
  • Divorce must be made easy because of domestic violence

And the details about number three:

Myth 3: No-fault divorce has led men to abandon their wives and children.

Fact: This does happen (wives more often than children), but it is greatly exaggerated. The vast majority of no-fault divorces — especially those involving children — are filed by wives. In fact, as Judy Parejko, author of Stolen Vows, has shown, the no-fault revolution was engineered largely by feminist lawyers, with the cooperation of the bar associations, as part of the sexual revolution. Overwhelmingly, it has served to separate large numbers of children from their fathers. Sometimes the genders are reversed, so that fathers take children from mothers. But either way, the main effect of no-fault is to make children weapons and pawns to gain power through the courts, not the “abandonment” of them by either parent.

Al Mohler wrote about the history of no-fault divorce a while back, and I think it’s worth reviewing why we have this lousy law.

The story behind America’s love affair with no-fault divorce is a sad and instructive tale. As Baskerville documents, no-fault divorce laws emerged in the United States during the 1970s and quickly spread across the nation. Even though only nine states had no-fault divorce laws in 1977, by 1995, every state had legalized no-fault divorce.

Behind all this is an ideological revolution driven by feminism and facilitated by this society’s embrace of autonomous individualism. Baskerville argues that divorce “became the most devastating weapon in the arsenal of feminism, because it creates millions of gender battles on the most personal level.” As far back as 1947, the National Association of Women Lawyers [NAWL] was pushing for what we now know as no-fault divorce. More recently, NAWL claims credit for the divorce revolution, describing it as “the greatest project NAWL has ever undertaken.”

The feminists and NAWL were not working alone, of course. Baskerville explains that the American Bar Association “persuaded the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws [NCCUSL] to produce the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act.” Eventually, this led to a revolution in law and convulsions in society at large. This legal revolution effectively drove a stake into the heart of marriage itself, with inevitable consequences. In effect, no-fault divorce has become the catalyst for one of the most destructive cultural shifts in human history. Now, no-fault divorce is championed by many governments in the name of human rights, and America’s divorce revolution is spreading around the world under the banner of “liberation.”

And note that Democrats oppose any effort to reform laws that make it easy to break up marriages:

A basic dishonesty on the question of divorce pervades our political culture. Baskerville cites Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm as referring to divorce as a couple’s “private decision.” Granholm’s comments came as she vetoed a bill intended to reform divorce law in her state. The danger and dishonesty of referring to divorce as a couple’s “private decision” is evident in the fact that this supposedly private decision imposes a reality, not only on the couple, but also on children and the larger society. Indeed, the “private decision” is really not made by a couple at all–but only by any spouse demanding a divorce.

So, no-fault was pushed by two groups: feminists and trial lawyers.

There’s a lot of talk these days about gay marriage and how it undermines marital norms and normalizes raising children without either their biological father or biological mother. But before there was gay marriage, there was no-fault divorce, which deprives children of their biological father. There is no provision for no-fault divorce in the Bible, so it seems to me that Christians should be against frivolous divorce just like we are against same-sex marriage.