Humanly speaking, in the confines of nature, one factor that is for sure is that there will be change. For the slogan that the only things we know for sure are death and taxes there ought to be added change. Change is built into life, made necessary because of the imperfections found in mankind and the dynamics of nature – addressed by persons with shifting attempts to win benefit in the currents of change. Sometimes mankind wins, and sometimes loses. Often the loss is traced to the irascibility of human beings found often even in serious application to problems. Sometimes the projected solutions not only do not succeed in solving problems, but may add new difficulties. Even clear and wisely wrought solutions may be undermined.
At this writing in the new millennium, the issue of marriage has been given new definition. The specific evidence that is used in the debate is the more public reporting of homosexual relationships, and the growing statistics of the numbers of homosexually oriented persons, male and female, in the population. Some argue that this orientation may include from five to seven percent of the population. The statistics are not easy to gather, or interpret. (There ought to be added that the divorce rate, and the spotty performance of many married couples has played a part in reducing the respect held for marriage bonds, and the context for the birth of infants.) Even with the decline of marriage performance, homosexuals seek, with genuine activism, for the privilege of marriage between same sex persons. Earlier in my own life, homosexuals argued against marriage for themselves because, as many affirmed, the morality of fidelity is not a value for homosexuals to the degree it is for heterosexual couples. Even that differential may have changed in a few decades for serious homosexuals. Society struggles with ever changing changes.
Some analysts, seeking to bring acceptable solution to the problem of divide between the heterosexual and homosexual communities are trying to address new and changed guidelines for traditional marriage. One study, not really concerned with controversy, simply tried to find the best model for the future family. This Family Asset Study, proposed: ….a new portrait of America’s families that fuses family relationships rather than family structure. There was strong emphasis on expectations, on relationships more than structure (so there is a democratic system for finding how the family, same or mixed genders, can do better). The idea of community values, long established did not gain majority support for the proposal although higher in the inner city than with suburban and rural families. Marriage then is to represent community, not biology.
Reviewing the reports on the Asset study I tended to feel that if the solutions proposed were applied to traditional marriages and families, there would not be any need for change that the study implies as new. There would be some shifting in emphasis, but to give up the cord that binds generations in the extension of feelings, of traditions, of DNA, of so much more, would be to defy a source of great strength that keeps many families from falling apart. In so many of these studies there is found some important information that, put to use, strengthens an already strong factor in our lives. Take away the traditional family in the life of a person, and emerging in his or her deepest feeling something is missing. Denied traditional family, one feels that something is wrong, and a human right has been denied – a family of mother, father, and child. What is dysfunctional in a traditional family life has always been wrong. What is right in the traditional family has always been right. There is no fundamental change. Scripture relates the analogy to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (Ephesians 5) The Christian feels the obligation, or ought to, to protect the traditional family concept. It has spiritual meaning. Current outcomes will not change that meaning.
The spiritual meaning of a family ought to be protected. Scripture makes family the basic parable related to God. The Father demonstrates leadership and authority; The Holy Spirit nourishes as a mother; and the Son, Christ, redeems so responds to protect mankind, a legacy of God. The divine context includes human family. The title of Jesus Christ is The Son of God. It proceeds to the Marriage Supper of Christ (Groom) with the Church (Bride). Violation of that word contradicts God. Our prayer is that in earth context our contradictions/paradoxes will be well managed for love and peace. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020