Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
News Feeder

Ted Cruz Says Gay Marriage and Gay Adoption Should be Left up to the States

Recommended Posts

Republican presidential candidate Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said during Thursday’s GOP debate that he is in favor of leaving the issues of gay marriage and gay adoption up to the states.

 

 

 

More...

Share this post


Link to post

I know what our faith teaches about homosexuality, but legal marriage issues imo, are secular, and it would seem wrong to me, to prevent consenting adults from marrying, based on what my faith dictates as moral. I don't know how others might feel about this?

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
I know what our faith teaches about homosexuality, but legal marriage issues imo, are secular, and it would seem wrong to me, to prevent consenting adults from marrying, based on what my faith dictates as moral. I don't know how others might feel about this?

 

Hi Deidre,

 

I came away from the article recognizing that Ted Cruz will limit himself and his powers by the Constitution. He is a man that draws from the intentions of America's forefathers.

 

As for marriage. Traditional marriage never discriminated against anyone. Any man or woman could enter into marriage - a covenant under God. The problem is, homosexual activist do no want equal rights, they want to redefine marriage. The definition of traditional marriage, again, does not discriminate against any man or woman. Any man or woman may enter into a covenant which the state recognized as being between one man and woman under God. This makes the homosexual activists a special interests group. If they were fighting for equal rights then they would fight for any other combination depraved man sees fit. Lastly, I think you're drawing on contract law. Any man, woman, and combination thereof may enter a contract under the state. Whether this needs special recognition or just a notary is up to the state.

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
I know what our faith teaches about homosexuality, but legal marriage issues imo, are secular, and it would seem wrong to me, to prevent consenting adults from marrying, based on what my faith dictates as moral. I don't know how others might feel about this?

 

From a secular perspective, homosexuality is immoral. It doesn't have reproductive value, nor offer male+female parental role models to children. Male homosexuality is very efficient at spreading disease. Homosexuality creates all sorts of modestly challenges, such as when it comes to public restrooms. Homosexuality (especially as the more common version of it, bisexuality) also makes it harder to trust a partner around other people. And, all this assumes that homosexuality is nothing but a different orientation. In reality, homosexuals are at a much greater risk of other mental, moral, and criminal problems.

 

Excuse me, but that's a load of complete of flaming pig manure that same-sex marriage is about consenting adults. Before SSM, consenting homosexuals already had the freedom to live as they wished (for anyone truly of a libertarian philosophy). SSM is about denying consent to adults. SSM is about the government forcefully promoting this immoral behavior and about the government forcefully prohibiting other people from choosing not to support SSM relationships.

 

No follower of Jesus supports SSM.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

 

From a secular perspective, homosexuality is immoral. It doesn't have reproductive value, nor offer male+female parental role models to children. Male homosexuality is very efficient at spreading disease. Homosexuality creates all sorts of modestly challenges, such as when it comes to public restrooms. Homosexuality (especially as the more common version of it, bisexuality) also makes it harder to trust a partner around other people. And, all this assumes that homosexuality is nothing but a different orientation. In reality, homosexuals are at a much greater risk of other mental, moral, and criminal problems.

 

Excuse me, but that's a load of complete of flaming pig manure that same-sex marriage is about consenting adults. Before SSM, consenting homosexuals already had the freedom to live as they wished (for anyone truly of a libertarian philosophy). SSM is about denying consent to adults. SSM is about the government forcefully promoting this immoral behavior and about the government forcefully prohibiting other people from choosing not to support SSM relationships.

 

No follower of Jesus supports SSM.

 

 

Your morality is dictated by your faith, as mine is. But, for many, morality is subjective, and they don't consider homosexuality to be immoral. We are not governed by Christianity, we have a secular government.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

Hi Deidre,

 

I came away from the article recognizing that Ted Cruz will limit himself and his powers by the Constitution. He is a man that draws from the intentions of America's forefathers.

 

As for marriage. Traditional marriage never discriminated against anyone. Any man or woman could enter into marriage - a covenant under God. The problem is, homosexual activist do no want equal rights, they want to redefine marriage. The definition of traditional marriage, again, does not discriminate against any man or woman. Any man or woman may enter into a covenant which the state recognized as being between one man and woman under God. This makes the homosexual activists a special interests group. If they were fighting for equal rights then they would fight for any other combination depraved man sees fit. Lastly, I think you're drawing on contract law. Any man, woman, and combination thereof may enter a contract under the state. Whether this needs special recognition or just a notary is up to the state.

 

God bless,

William

Hi William, I like your thoughts to it. But, what do you mean that the definition of traditional marriage doesn't discriminate against any man or woman?

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

Hi William, I like your thoughts to it. But, what do you mean that the definition of traditional marriage doesn't discriminate against any man or woman?

 

Traditional marriage is an exclusive permanent union between one man and one woman. Take for example, Genesis 1:28, which does not discriminate against race or even religious affiliation. God established a bond with Adam and Eve and all their descendants. The requirements of this covenant are binding upon everyone who has ever lived, since all people are ultimately descended from them.

 

Now homosexual activist have attempted to redefine not only traditional marriage, but also what it means to be a "man" and/or a "woman". I agree with Ted Cruz leaving how states deal with homosexual union/contracts or adoption to the state. Lest the Supreme Court deems the state courts incompetent and incapable of defining what is or not a marriage, therefore, making them incompetent and incapable of either honoring or dissolving (divorce) marriages.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post

But, you are drawing upon the Bible, which only we Christians care about. So, while I hear you ...if someone is an atheist, or a believer but doesn't follow the Bible, their sense of what defines a marriage, will be different than a Christian's ideal. This brings the point up that if we are governed by a secular government, then we can't pick and choose what religious doctrines should be inserted or not. I don't want to be governed by any religion, there is a need to keep separation of church and state. But, at the same time, I see the slippery slope that redefining marriage will have on other groups of people who wish to validate their marriages, legally. (ie this could stretch into polygamy, etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
But, you are drawing upon the Bible, which only we Christians care about. So, while I hear you ...if someone is an atheist, or a believer but doesn't follow the Bible, their sense of what defines a marriage, will be different than a Christian's ideal. This brings the point up that if we are governed by a secular government, then we can't pick and choose what religious doctrines should be inserted or not. I don't want to be governed by any religion, there is a need to keep separation of church and state. But, at the same time, I see the slippery slope that redefining marriage will have on other groups of people who wish to validate their marriages, legally. (ie this could stretch into polygamy, etc)

 

Hello Deidre,

 

I can definitely acknowledge post modernism's influence on recent generations. The above ideas about secularism are rather new to American history. Here's an interesting article on the subject which I think you might enjoy reading: Supreme Court Justice Scalia: Constitution says government can favor religion

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Your morality is dictated by your faith, as mine is. But, for many, morality is subjective, and they don't consider homosexuality to be immoral. We are not governed by Christianity, we have a secular government.

 

Your support of SSM shows that your morality is not dictated by the Christian faith. And, you can't have it both ways.

 

Morality is not subjected. Any behavior that lacks practical value but is harmful is immoral. Homosexual conduct has no practical value to society, but is harmful, therefor it is immoral.

 

The purpose of getting government in SSM is to take away our rights of consent.

 

Deidr, you have no defense for you position. It is immoral and tyrannical, and not a position that a follower of Christ can hold. Take a look, it's only the "Christian" countries that have SSM. Atheists, when not rebelling against Christianity (e.g. China and Russia) reject SSM. Non-Christian countries around the world universally reject SSM. See, what you're really doing is rebelling against Christ. You're not taking a secular position, you're taking an anti-Christian position.

 

Any church that supports SSM is apostate. Period.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

Your support of SSM shows that your morality is not dictated by the Christian faith. And, you can't have it both ways.

 

Morality is not subjected. Any behavior that lacks practical value but is harmful is immoral. Homosexual conduct has no practical value to society, but is harmful, therefor it is immoral.

 

The purpose of getting government in SSM is to take away our rights of consent.

 

Deidr, you have no defense for you position. It is immoral and tyrannical, and not a position that a follower of Christ can hold. Take a look, it's only the "Christian" countries that have SSM. Atheists, when not rebelling against Christianity (e.g. China and Russia) reject SSM. Non-Christian countries around the world universally reject SSM. See, what you're really doing is rebelling against Christ. You're not taking a secular position, you're taking an anti-Christian position.

 

Any church that supports SSM is apostate. Period.

 

You are not in a place to judge me, so spare me your lecture.You have no right to tell another person if they are living a moral life or not, and what type of relationship they have with Christ. I'm not taking any position on the topic, I'm discussing it. Your reaction is so negative, and it really doesn't help Christianity to tear down someone else in Christ. If you continue, I will ask that you no longer address me here. Thank you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
You have no right to tell another person if they are living a moral life or not,

 

Why not? Liberals do it all the time. You want the government to tell me that same-sex marriage is moral. You want the government to do more than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

Please address the OP and not one another. If this does not deescalate the thread will be locked.

Share this post


Link to post
This brings the point up that if we are governed by a secular government, then we can't pick and choose what religious doctrines should be inserted or not.

All people and geovernments are governed first by God, whether they acknowledge it or not. Also, opposition to SSM is not an exclusively Christian belief. As far as I know all religions and cultures throughout history have recognized marriage as being between a man and a woman.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

All people and geovernments are governed first by God, whether they acknowledge it or not. Also, opposition to SSM is not an exclusively Christian belief. As far as I know all religions and cultures throughout history have recognized marriage as being between a man and a woman.

 

Those who would persecute Christians dream up rationalizations for a pretense that their desired oppression is somehow virtuous. One way is to dismiss the values and freedoms that correspond with Christianity by saying those values and freedoms are religious and therefor invalid as part of a "secular" society.

 

Traditional marriage is a universal value, held by all secular societies and all religions, except societies were Christianity is fading. It is an anti-Christian value, not a secular value. But, someone looking to persecute Christians is not going to care about 1) Something that is a Christian value is as least as valid as other values. And, 2) Traditional marriage is a universal secular value, except in societies that are rebelling against Christian values.

 

Churches that support SSM are apostate, not just because this shows they dismiss the authority in scripture and God's values (no love of God), but also because they have no respect for the freedom and conscience of their fellow man (no love of their neighbors). From a Christian perspective, they are reprobates. From a secular perspective, they are tyrants.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I’m so grateful that not all followers of Christ are condemning of others but rather try to show understanding and mercy…as Christ Himself showed. This doesn’t mean we condone sin, it means we are not merciless. We are all sinners, and Jesus came to save us all. But, to each their own. I have often found it sadly amusing that so many Christians take issue with homosexuality as if it is the only grave sin of all mankind, and forget that heterosexuals commit sexual sin. But, many Christians who are heterosexual don’t want to pull the plank from their own eyes, it’s far easier to point out the ones in their neighbors’ eyes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
This doesn’t mean we condone sin,

 

Have you checked the dictionary for the meaning of "condone"? You don't think supporting the government giving a blessing to a sin is condoning sin? Then there's the other half of government condoning sin, and that's condemning the righteous.

 

I have often found it sadly amusing that so many Christians take issue with homosexuality as if it is the only grave sin of all mankind

 

Right, the sin of Sodom isn't the only sin. Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality... Any church that gives open approval to idolatry or adultery, I also won't hesitate to call apostate. But, the topic of this thread isn't idolatry or adultery. Still, when the "tolerant" fascists start fining cake bakers and putting them out of business for refusing to make "happy cheating" cakes for adulterers, I'll be sure to condemn the reprobate tyrants who support such oppression of Christians and everyone of morality.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I don't spend my time pointing out the sins of others, because I'm fallible myself. I'm aware of what Christianity teaches on various moral matters, but if you wish to influence people to Christ, throwing stones at them, and acting superior to them, won't accomplish it. I understand your anger at how the world treats Christians, or how the world's immorality has become ''accepted.'' But, Jesus tells us that while we live in the world, we are not of the world. That should bring us hope. That should BE our message of hope for those who don't yet follow Christ.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • China’s Plans for Global Dominance Include Supplanting the United States’ Leadership Position

      By R. Mitchell - Anyone who doubts whether the world is once again immersed in great power competition should read the 2019 China Military Power Report released today by the Defense Intelligence Agency. The 140-page booklet explains China’s strategy and its efforts to supplant the United States and impose its rules on the international order. In a preface to the report, Army Lt. Gen. Robert P. Ashley, the DIA director, said that as China grows in strength and confidence, it will insist on “having a greater voice in global interactions, which at times may be antithetical to U.S. interests.” It’s modeled after the Reagan era’s Soviet Military Power series, and it uses the words of Chinese leaders and publications to make its case. It also details Chinese strategy and the history behind it. The report looks at China’s goals, detailing changes in the structures and commands in the People’s Liberation Army. It also looks at military modernization and the underlying goals of Chinese leaders. It serves as a primer for what the U.S. military must counter and where American money would best be spent. “With a deeper understanding of the military might behind Chinese economic and diplomatic efforts,” Ashley continued, “we can provide our own national political, economic, and military leaders the widest range of options for choosing when to counter, when to encourage, and when to join with China in actions around the world.” China refers to its military strategy as “active defense” which uses offensive actions if the government believes that an enemy may do something against the interests of China, even if the adversary takes no offensive action. Believing this modernization is needed for the country to achieve great power status, Chinese leaders are investing in capabilities across all domains of warfare. What it does with this new-found power is what concerns U.S. and allied leaders. China could impose its will in the region in Asia and around the globe. China’s threat matrix is not limited to global powers. In fact, its own internal reports list small local countries as primary threats: Border Disputes Investment and Modernization China began seriously investing in its military in 2000 and increased its spending by 10% per year until 2016 when it slowed to 5-to-7-percent growth. It is estimated that China spent more than $200 Billion on defense in 2018 which is a three-fold increase since 2002. The Chinese army, the PLA, and navy, the PLAN, are working to enhance their capability to project power globally. Transport aircraft from Russia and the first Chinese aircraft carrier will go a long way to allowing Beijing to move troops, supplies and equipment around the world. China’s carrier performed sea trials in 2018 and is expected to go into service in 2019. Counterspace China has a significant space presence including communications and intelligence satellites and now it is investing serious resources into anti-satellite weaponry. Conclusion China is investing vast sums of money and tremendous resources into modernizing its army and navy. While still years away from being able deploy a massive conventional force across the globe, it is a regional military superpower with significant conventional, nuclear, and space-based assets. China will use its capabilities to push disputed borders further out, reunify Taiwan with the mainland and increase its presence in the South China sea and Indian Ocean. Beijing will also continue its New Silk Road Belt and Road initiative to build ports for less-fortunate countries while indebting those nations to China. This new wave of soft-imperialism will create challenges for NATO, the European Union and the United States. Full 2019 China Military Power Report China-Military-Power-FINAL-5MB-20190103
      Source: Department of Defense – all quotes are from the Defense Intelligence Agency’s 2019 China Military Power Report Content created by Conservative Daily News is available for re-publication without charge under the Creative Commons license. Visit our syndication page for details. China’s Plans for Global Dominance Include Supplanting the United States’ Leadership Position is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • The Puritan’s View of Sex in Marriage

      by Nathan W. Bingham   There are many caricatures and misinformation when it comes to how Christians through the ages have viewed sex in marriage. In Dr. Joel R. Beeke’s Living for God’s Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism, he dedicates a chapter to marriage, in which he discusses the Puritan’s view.   Marital love must be sexual, so that both marital partners can give themselves fully to each other with joy and exuberance in a healthy relationship marked by fidelity. Reformers such as Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Calvin established this aspect of marriage by abandoning the medieval Roman Catholic attitudes that marriage was inferior to celibacy, that all sexual contact between marital partners was a necessary evil to propagate the human race, and that a procreative act that involved passion was inherently sinful.   This negative view was rooted in the ancient church and based on the writings of such notables as Tertullian, Ambrose, and Jerome, all of whom believed that, even within marriage, intercourse necessarily involved sin. This attitude toward marital intimacy, which dominated the church for more than ten centuries, inevitably led to the glorification of virginity and celibacy. By the fifth century, clerics were prohibited from marrying. Two classes of Christians emerged: the “religious” (i.e., the spiritual clergy), which included monks and nuns who vowed to abstain from all sexual activity, and the “profane” (i.e., the secular laity), who, being unable to rise to the noble heights of virginity or celibacy, were conceded the right to marry.   Puritan preachers taught that the Roman Catholic view was unbiblical, even satanic. They cited Paul, who said that the prohibition of marriage is a doctrine of devils (1 Tim. 4:1–3). Even the Puritan definitions of marriage implied the conjugal act. For example, Perkins defines marriage as “the lawful conjunction of the two married persons; that is, of one man and one woman into one flesh.” In contrast with Desiderius Erasmus, who taught that ideal marriage abstained from sexual intercourse, Cotton said in a wedding sermon that those who call for marital abstinence follow the dictates of a blind mind and not those of the Holy Spirit, who says that it is not good that man should be alone.   The Puritans viewed sex within marriage as a gift of God and as an essential, enjoyable part of marriage. Gouge says that husbands and wives should cohabit “with good will and delight, willingly, readily, and cheerfully.” “They do err,” adds Perkins, “who hold that the secret coming together of man and wife cannot be without sin unless it be done for the procreation of children.”   Perkins goes on to say that marital sex is a “due debt” or “due benevolence” (1 Cor. 7:3) that a couple owes to one another. That must be shown, he says, “with a singular and entire affection one towards another” in three ways: “First, by the right and lawful use of their bodies or of the marriage bed.” Such physical intimacy by “holy usage” should be “a holy and undefiled action (Heb. 13:4)… sanctified by the word and prayer (1 Tim. 4:3–4).” The fruits of God-honoring, enjoyable sex in marriage are the blessing of children, “the preservation of the body in cleanness,” and the reflection of marriage as a type of the Christ-church relationship. Second, married couples must “cherish one another” intimately (Eph. 5:29) rather than having sex in an impersonal way as an adulterer with a prostitute. Third, a couple should be intimate “by an holy kind of rejoicing and solacing themselves each with [the] other in a mutual declaration of the signs and tokens of love and kindness (Prov. 5:18–19; Songs 1:1; Gen. 26:8; Isa. 62:7).” In this context, Perkins particularly mentions kissing.   Other Puritans stressed the romantic side of marriage as they compared the love of a husband to God’s love for His own. Thomas Hooker writes, “The man whose heart is endeared to the woman he loves, he dreams of her in the night, hath her in his eye and apprehension when he awakes, museth on her as he sits at table, walks with her when he travels and parlies with her in each place where he comes.” He adds: “She lies in his Bosom, and his heart trusts in her, which forceth all to confess, that the stream of his affection, like a mighty current, runs with full tide and strength.”   The emphasis on romance within marriage (rather than in extramarital relations, as was common in the Middle Ages) has often been attributed to the Puritans. Herbert W. Richardson writes that “the rise of romantic marriage and its validation by the Puritans represents a major innovation within the Christian tradition.” And C. S. Lewis says, “The conversion of courtly love into romantic monogamous love was largely the work of… Puritan poets.”   The Puritans took the matrimonial duty of sex so seriously that failure to extend “due benevolence” by either partner could be grounds for church discipline. There is at least one case on record in which a husband was excommunicated for “neglecting his wife” by not having intercourse with her for a long period of time.

      in Marriage

    • United States Takes Action To Confront Illegal Immigration

      By R. Mitchell - Today the United States Government announced historic action to confront the illegal immigration crisis facing the United States. The Trump administration notified the Government of Mexico that the United States is invoking Section 235(b)(2)(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act immediately. Individuals arriving in the United States from Mexico—illegally or without proper documentation—will be returned to Mexico for the duration of their immigration proceedings. The Mexican government has assured Trump officials that it will afford affected migrants visas to stay on Mexican soil, apply for work, and other benefits while they await U.S. proceedings. The move will effectively end catch-and-release where illegal immigrants that request asylum after being caught entering the country illegally, would be released into the United States pending legal proceedings. The caught and released aliens rarely showed up for their hearings and disappeared into the shadows of the illegal alien community within the United States. Source: U.S. Department of State
      Content created by Conservative Daily News is available for re-publication without charge under the Creative Commons license. Visit our syndication page for details and requirements. United States Takes Action To Confront Illegal Immigration is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • When Adoption Breaks Your Heart

      Early on a Tuesday morning in April 2007, I got on my knees and confessed to God that my walk with him was too comfortable. I asked him to show me a way my husband and I might stretch the limits of our comfort zone, to be better contributors to his kingdom. When I finished praying, I switched on the radio and immediately heard a woman making a plea for homes to host French students visiting America for one week. A fast answer to prayer! I talked to my husband, made the call, and, two weeks later, Celine came into our life. Two months later, we hosted Axl for three weeks, and by the start of school, Su Ying joined our family for an entire year. Our time with these vibrant students was stretching, joyful, and a tremendous blessing. “Ask and it will be given to you” indeed (Matt. 7:7). Opening our home to international students, however, was mere groundwork for the culminating answer to that prayer. Five months after we asked God for a mission, Jacqueline fell into our lives. Answer to Prayer I first saw her in the hallway of the school where I taught. She had a gigantic binder tucked under her arm as she walked to her third-grade classroom with an air of utter confidence and control. I was captivated by her impossibly huge dark eyes, wavy pixie cut, full cheeks, and tiny frame. The next time I saw Jacqueline, she was screaming, being carried hand and foot down the hallway by two disheveled teachers who’d asked her to stay in from recess to finish her homework. Her reaction was unexpected, a response to past trauma. On good days, Jacqueline would receive the privilege of coming into my classroom to read to Dudley, our therapy dog. On bad days, she was relegated to her own classroom, stripped of all privileges. Eventually, we learned that Jacqueline’s hard circumstances necessitated an adoption plan. Her needs and our desire to help coincided in a way that seemed a clear answer to our prayers. Jacqueline came into our home in the summer of 2008 and officially became our daughter one year later. She left our home in hostility in the summer of 2016 and hasn’t returned. Didn’t We Pray? Our experience with Jackie couldn’t have been further from our hopes, leaving us devastated and confused. Though there were times when we were optimistic about our daughter, the aggression, social-service investigations, police visits, hospitalizations, endless counseling sessions, stealing, running away, and chaos that often pervaded our home during the nearly nine years she lived with us ultimately left us with more questions than answers. God, we wondered, did we not ask for success with our daughter? Did we not seek your face at every turn when we were raising her? Did we not desperately pound on the door of your grace with every challenge and crisis we faced? The daughter God blessed us with rejected us at every turn, and ultimately left our home without looking back. We wondered if God’s promises had failed. When my husband and I prayed over and for our daughter, we boldly asked God to save her from the trauma and turbulence of her formative years. We were specific. Lord, please give us the wisdom to help Jackie bridle her temper. Father, please give Jackie good success in school. Abba, please be with us in today’s counseling session, because it’s going to be a rough one. We had a hopeful expectation that God would fulfill the words of Matthew 7, but we felt instead like we had asked and not been given, sought and not found, knocked and encountered only a barrier between us and our daughter. Were we mistaken that Jackie was an answer to my prayer all those years ago? J. I. Packer, in his marvelous book Knowing God, addresses our tendency to “feel sure that God has enabled us to understand all his ways with us . . . and to be able to see at once the reason for anything that may happen to us in the future.” He writes: And then something very painful and quite inexplicable comes along, and our cheerful illusion of being in God’s secret counsels is shattered. Our pride is wounded; we feel that God has slighted us; and unless at this point we repent and humble ourselves very thoroughly for our former presumption, our whole subsequent spiritual life may be blighted. We thought we knew what God was doing. The painful results of our failed adoption, however, reminded us that God is God, and we are not. Unexpected Answers In the two years since our daughter left, God has graciously shown us that the thing we asked him to grant—success with Jackie—wasn’t ultimate. The ultimate answer to our prayers was God himself. In his kindness and love, he gave himself freely and abundantly. When counseling sessions loomed and police lights flashed outside the front door, we knew our weakness and his faithfulness in a way we’d never known it before. Over time, he has enabled us to see that our consummate desire, our highest request, the objective of our seeking, the only door to eternal life, is delight in the Father through his Son and the fellowship we enjoy with his Spirit. Elsewhere in Knowing God, Packer writes: “[God’s] ultimate objective is to bring [people] to a state in which they please him entirely and praise him adequately, a state in which he is all in all to them, and he and they rejoice continually in the knowledge of each other’s love.” It is good and right to ask God to provide needs and wants. But ultimately, our prayers must be for his glory and his will. All other prayers—for provision and healing and safety and peace—must remain subordinate to the desire for God himself. Whatever our circumstances, the Spirit enables us to better know God, rejoice in his plans, love what he loves, and delight in fellowship with him. Understanding that our ultimate good is knowing and enjoying God keeps us from debilitating disappointment and doubt when his provision isn’t provided in the way we expect. We love our daughter. And we trust that God is working for good in her life and in ours, no matter what the end of our story may be. We continue to pray and hope that Jackie, like the prodigal, will return and receive the love and benefit of belonging to our family. But though currently the answer to that prayer remains a “no,” we’re grateful for the sweet comfort we have come to know from our gracious and loving Savior. View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.