<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2668" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Dearest New Man,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>I have some burning theological questions.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Since you are obviously among the great authorities on the
meaning of the Bible (And who knows? You may even be God's attorney here
on earth and in her/his/its confidence), perhaps you will
dutifully comment on the following:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Assume a Christ Church Cult member who is an attorney writes
material like that which Brandon Steele posted recently (copy below),
and which clearly states and urges/demands strict adherence to God's rules
about marriage. (I call your attention to the last
paragraph:)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV>"Marriage is ordained by God, not man, and we are not free to tinker with
its <BR>creation or dissolution in an effort to modify it to fit our arbitrary
<BR>standards of what a marriage should be. It is not primarily a loving, caring
<BR>and nurturing relationship which can be had by pairings other than husband
<BR>and wife, nor is it a haven for family values. It is fundamentally a picture
<BR>of Christ's relationship to and interaction with His Church (Eph. 5:22-32).
<BR>While that marriage can never be dissolved because its head is perfect,
<BR>divorce is allowed among men because of our hardness of heart (Mark
10:2-9).<BR>Of course no-fault divorce laws should be repealed and repented of.
When the <BR>marriage covenant is broken, it is a recognition that one of the
spouses has <BR>committed grievous sin. Someone really incurs moral blame. The
civil <BR>magistrate, as God's minister, has a duty to require that people honor
the <BR>marriage covenant as God ordained it."<BR><FONT
size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Where does a person who might write material such as this
stand with God when his actions are diametrically opposed to what he has loudly
represented/proclaimed as God's Law and has demanded of others strict
allegiance thereto?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Suppose, after writing as above (and below), he then divorces
his ill and pregnant wife. Suppose he even schedules a remarriage before
the issue of the pregnancy arrives and then reschedules so as to avoid the
appearance of impropriety.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Will not God see such a man as the worst of
the lying hypocrites? When this man asks for forgiveness, will God
forgive him knowing of his horrific insincerity -- especially with his
hypocritical crowing about and insistence upon God's word but
deliberately acting to the contrary? What sin could be worse? How
could God believe that his plea for forgiveness is really sincere?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Suppose this man has charted this grossly,
shamefully impious course with the connivance and consent of his
pastor? Will the pastor fare any better with God at end times? Are
they both now condemned to hell for their knowingly and
willfully leading others astray from God's path while using God's words for
their own personal, vainglorious gain?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>On the secular side:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>[1] What person in their right mind would hire as
an attorney one who has done such a dishonest, dishonorable, hypocritical
thing? Who could trust them with their confidences? Who could
believe in their integrity?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>[2] Does not the writings below and the subsequent
actions of the author suggest that he may be in very dire need of a competent
mental health practitioner?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>[3] And how will the new wife feel and fare, knowing
that despite his alleged passionate religiosity, he cruelly ripped his
previous marriage asunder because his former wife incurred his
displeasure?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>My dearest New Man, please bless us by giving us God's answer
to the above questions! (Also, please use a larger font so that those of
us who are old and of dimmed vision can have the benefit of your
wisdom.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4> <BR>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<BR><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A><BR> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT
size=4>________________________________________________________________</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>"Guilty Marriages," a work by Gregory Dickison<BR><BR>As this is a bridal
issue, it seemed good to write about the civil <BR>government's role in
marriage. That's why this article is on divorce. No <BR>bridal issue would be
complete without an article on divorce. Even in our <BR>day, there is no more
solemn covenant entered among men than marriage. Yet <BR>the civil government
has made it the easiest covenant to break.<BR><BR>Prior to 1969, the law took a
fairly biblical view of marriage. It was a <BR>covenant between a man and a
woman to take each other as husband and wife <BR>(the biblical definition of
marriage was assumed by the statutes), which <BR>could be solemnized by a judge,
a magistrate, the governor, a mayor, or a <BR>"priest or minister of the gospel
of any denomination."[1] In other words, a <BR>minister of God. Annulments
(making the marriage void ab initio) could only <BR>generally be granted if one
of the spouses was already married, was <BR>incapable of giving consent, or if
consent was obtained by fraud.[2] Married <BR>couples could only be divorced for
reasons that were considered to be <BR>violations of the covenant: adultery,
extreme physical or mental cruelty, <BR>wilful desertion, the husband's
negligent failure to provide for his wife, <BR>or habitual intemperance which
prevents the spouse from attending to <BR>business or causes great mental
anguish.[3] These causes could not simply be <BR>asserted by a spouse. In order
to obtain a divorce, the conduct had to be <BR>proven. The biblical roots of
these statutes are evident. There is an <BR>amazing affinity between pre-1969
divorce laws and Chapter 24 of the <BR>Westminster Confession of
Faith.<BR><BR>The modern concept of "no-fault" divorce has been with us less
than 30 <BR>years.[4] In 1969, then-governor of California Ronald Reagan (the
great <BR>savior of the family) signed the first law taking the concept of
covenant <BR>breaking out of divorce. Forty-five states followed suit within the
next <BR>five years, and all 50 states currently have some type of no-fault
divorce <BR>statute.[5] While most state codes still contain the "old" causes of
action, <BR>they have been rendered dead letters by the no-fault
provisions.<BR><BR>Typically, these laws use the phrase "irreconcilable
differences." <BR>Irreconcilable differences are "those grounds which are
determined by the <BR>court to be substantial reasons for not continuing the
marriage and which <BR>make it appear that the marriage should be dissolved."[6]
Obviously, this <BR>can mean anything, and that was exactly the intent of the
law. Unlike the <BR>old system, a spouse need not offer any specific proof as to
what the <BR>irreconcilable differences are. They simply need to be asserted,
and the <BR>divorce will be granted. Even over the protestations of the other
spouse.<BR>With the advent of no-fault divorce, the marriage contract became the
<BR>easiest legal contract to break. No other agreement between men could be
<BR>broken with less formality or fewer legal consequences. The expressed design
<BR>of no-fault divorce law was "to promote harmony and reduce fighting,"[7]
<BR>particularly where children were involved (as if harmony can be increased in
<BR>a process that is, by definition, inharmonious). But critics of the no-fault
<BR>system counter that the actual result was an increase in the divorce rate
<BR>and a casual and irresponsible attitude toward marriage and divorce. A move
<BR>is currently underway in several states to repeal the no-fault statutes and
<BR>return the concept of culpability to divorce.<BR><BR>Both sides of the
debate are stacking up pragmatic arguments and waving the <BR>family values
flag. The "no-faulters" claim that the statistical correlation <BR>between the
divorce rate and no-fault statutes is negligible if not tenuous, <BR>that laws
can't force people to stay together, that the costs of divorce <BR>will rise as
spouse's spend more time litigating blame, that children will <BR>be caught in
the middle of open war, and that if divorce is not readily <BR>available then
people will opt to live together without matrimony rather <BR>than make a
binding commitment. The "faulters" respond that no-fault laws <BR>have caused
the divorce rate to skyrocket, that repealing them will <BR>encourage a greater
sense of responsibility and commitment, that couples <BR>will have more
incentive to work their problems out, and that the war over <BR>children rages
on just as much now when deciding custody matters, and is no <BR>harder on them
than the ultimate consequences of the divorce. Engaging these <BR>battles on
pragmatic grounds have caused the real point of the war to be
<BR>missed.<BR><BR>Marriage is ordained by God, not man, and we are not free to
tinker with its <BR>creation or dissolution in an effort to modify it to fit our
arbitrary <BR>standards of what a marriage should be. It is not primarily a
loving, caring <BR>and nurturing relationship which can be had by pairings other
than husband <BR>and wife, nor is it a haven for family values. It is
fundamentally a picture <BR>of Christ's relationship to and interaction with His
Church (Eph. 5:22-32). <BR>While that marriage can never be dissolved because
its head is perfect, <BR>divorce is allowed among men because of our hardness of
heart (Mark 10:2-9).<BR>Of course no-fault divorce laws should be repealed and
repented of. When the <BR>marriage covenant is broken, it is a recognition that
one of the spouses has <BR>committed grievous sin. Someone really incurs moral
blame. The civil <BR>magistrate, as God's minister, has a duty to require that
people honor the <BR>marriage covenant as God ordained it.<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=1564_2@mail.com href="mailto:1564_2@mail.com">New man</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, July 08, 2005 10:54
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Vision2020] Responsible for
Moscow's Homosexual Sin: Evangelical Free, Bridge Bible Church, Trinity
Baptist, Church of the Nazarene, Christian Life Center</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=1>Garret Clevenger,</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=1>On homosexuality, the Bible is clear. God hates
them and has provided that they be put to death by the civil authority. Now,
the implementation of all this must occur with all wisdom and love.
Enforcement of God's law is compassion.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=1>On the other hand, it's not only the homosexuals of
Moscow that need to repent. Spitiually castrated churches are the cause (e.g.,
Evangelical Free, Bridge Bible Church, Trinity Baptist, Church of the
Nazarene, Christian Life Center, et al.). </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=1>I offer the following article to our local
offending churches as a rebuke and a call to repentence.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=1>"Arrows in the Hand of a Limp-Wristed Man,"<B> by
</B>Ben Merkle</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=1>The homosexual movement is by necessity a parasitic
movement. Gay men don't reproduce and lesbians only do so with some clever
science or helpful friends. Therefore, the gay world is a necessarily barren
world and depends on the straight community for its children. Without the
children of heterosexuals, the homosexuals could have no next generation. But,
despite the homosexual sterility, the gay movement seems to have no shortage
of new blood. So where do they all come from? The answer is fairly tragic.
They come from the Church. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=1>Christianity has become a spiritually castrated
movement. As a Church we are not able to reproduce. We might produce children
of the flesh, a host of Ishmaels, but no children of the promise, no Isaacs.
Our children grow up in the Church only to lose interest in the faith and to
walk away from the blood of Christ and the glories of the New Covenant. We
have grown so used to losing our children to unbelief that we have begun to
expect it. We expect apostasy so much that we grow skeptical of children who
do not abandon the faith. And so the Church has become the incubator for the
next generation of homosexuals. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=1>But the expectation of apostasy is the spirit of
the age and is actually larger than the Church. We expect our children to
rebel against us, but so do the pagans. They all expect to face the day when
their children will spit on the gods of their forefathers and strike out in a
new direction. They expect this because this is what they did when they were
young and (not being very imaginative) they can't fathom anyone being
different. Vegetarians know that under the influence of bad friends their
children will begin sneaking out in the middle of the night to McDonald's.
Pacifists expect to discover their sons enlisted in the Marine Corps. Tree
Huggers know that their children will someday probably take up whittling.
Rebellion is an essential ingredient of American childhood. It's part of the
American liturgy. So it's no wonder that the homosexual community expects our
children to rebel since this is expected by everyone, including us.
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=1>The Church must repent of this terrible lack of
faith. How can we say that we believe the Gospel, a Gospel which has been
founded on promises to a thousand generations, when we don't even believe in
blessings to the next generation? The Psalmist describes the children of one's
youth as arrows in the hand of a mighty man. Our children are meant to stand
next to us in the fight against God's enemies. But here we are staring at
quivers full of arrows and all anyone sees are fresh recruits for our enemies.
Run a thought experiment. Imagine two men in a small town debating the dangers
of a particularly potent local Reformed Church which has begun causing a
hubbub in the town.</FONT><A
href="http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/mail/16-2footnotes.php//lRecipio"><U><SUP><FONT
color=#0000ff><FONT face=Arial size=1>1</FONT></U></SUP></FONT></A><SUP><FONT
face=Arial size=1> The congregation is about one thousand, which is
particularly large for that community. Now one man says to the other, rather
dismissively, that of those thousand church members, almost seven hundred are
children. Should this fact make one more nervous or less nervous about the
potency of the Church? What a terrible tragedy that a host of children in the
Church's ranks calms the opposition, rather than filling them with fear.
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=1>Try another thought experiment. Imagine America at
its founding, with a deep and glorious Christian heritage. Now imagine the
overwhelming number of American Christian fathers raising their children to
know the Lord. And imagine that continuing for just ten generations. What
would modern America look like? How would things be different? So, why is it
that we think the homosexual movement is a political problem requiring a
political solution? Why is it that we think the heart of the problem is the
shanghaiing of state legislatures or renegade judges in San Francisco? We
continue our fevered politicking all the while handing the arrows made for the
hand of a mighty man over to the opposition, generation after generation. The
problem is us. The problem is in our churches and our families, not in our
legislatures. We don't raise our children faithfully. And then, when our
children turn on us and join the opposition, we blindly blame a political
agenda. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=1>Anyone serious about combating the homosexual
movement must begin at home with repentance and faithful child rearing. And
what a blessing from God that the most important battle the Church faces
begins when you come home from work, take your tie off, and begin wrestling
with your son. How many Christians, pastors in particular, neglect to play
with their kids because they are busy doing the work of the kingdom? But in
doing so, they are actually neglecting the most important work of the kingdom.
Isn't it a tragedy that a young man would grow up to find the fellowship of
sodomy more lovely and enjoyable than the fellowship of the saints? But how
many Christian fathers are busy making it easy for their sons to draw just
that sort of conclusion? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=1>We have been given a kind, caring, loving Father in
Heaven, whose attention is never hard to get, and we have been commanded to
imitate Him to our children. In the whole fight against homosexuality, this is
the most important agenda for us to pursue.</FONT> </P></SUP><BR>--
<P>___________________________________________________________<BR>Sign-up for
Ads Free at Mail.com<BR><A
href="http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/payment/adtracking.cgi?bannercode=adsfreejump01"
target=_blank>http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup</A></P>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_____________________________________________________<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>