I don’t get the hype for segregated ministry. The more you segregate the greater risk of just becoming “self help” for all your life issues, whether it is marriage, children, or singleness, whatever. I think it hurts way more than it helps the body of Christ. I have the same reservations about youth ministry (and we wonder why young adults have a hard time finding their place in the church once they turn 18!)

My husband and I find married groups really boring anyways.

As a homeschooler, can I just add how much of a public school “grades” mindset is behind that conversation with the receptionist? God forbid the eighth graders mix with the seventh graders…or the “young marrieds” with the young singles. Sad that when people try to ditch this mindset, they swing all the way to the FIC.

Vid was funny. Man I feel for anyone defined by anything besides their name.

Seems to me that if each of us concentrate on being the christian that God wants us to be, which is in the bible, then all these “self help” sermons on marriage, raising kids, etc. would be moot. Marriage would automatically be healthy.

LOVE that video!

“Jeeeeeeesus is your boyfriend now”

Bwahahahahahahahaha! 🙂 🙂 🙂

@ Teri Anne:

Teri Anne, within a very short time after I decided to give myself a much-needed break from church attendance, I met a wonderful man and had a pretty serious relationship. It didn’t work out in the end but I’m very grateful for that time and for him.

And I can tell you that it was a bloody relief to not have the 10,000 lb. weight of churchianity/Christian culture hanging over me at that time, either.

Whodathunkit?

@ dee: Current Doctor Who or old-school Doctor Who?

My faves are David Tennant and Tom Baker, though Matt Smith is pretty sweet, too. 😉

@ numo:

I saw the Doctor Who symphony at the end of last year. I’ve only seen the full seasons of Matt Smith’s Doctor, but have seen large parts of Tennant and Eccleston (it used to be on the same night as my old evening church, so I’d miss part or all of episodes regularly) and remember bits of Tom Baker. My heart belongs to Rory, though.

Yeah, no patience with singles ministries any more. In my new church, my friend has become involved with some of the older singles, but I am not interested right now. I’d rather get to know a variety of people. Unfortunately I know a lot of singles over 40 who don’t attend church any more. It seems there’s nothing out there for them, and they’d rather watch church on t.v. Somehow I think the whole church is missing out in that situation.

Dee
Bless you for this post about singles.

JOsh, at a certain church guys were urged to work in the nursery and childrens’ ministry (those ministries that we were at one point told were never going to exist because that would unfairly segregate demographics on the congregation) because working in the nursery would lead to finding hotties of the opposite sex who could then be married.

Didn’t buy that and it’s not because i have no willingness to help with the little ones. Using the possibility of marriage and sex as a way to get single guys to volunteer in children’s ministry just seemed skeezy and cheap, that’s all.

I have so much to say about this topic. I was single until age 36. I spent most of that time without a church home. Some true experiences:

*As a young Christian school teacher, I visited a church where I was informed that I should attend youth ministry events as it was designed for all teens (13+), and all unmarried adults up to age 40. Yes. Truly. Single adults were expected to hang out with 13 year olds and assumed to have the same spiritual needs. I would have literally been expected to worship and fellowship with teens including my own students.
*Visited another where I was told I could not be part of the women’s Bible study I expressed interest in as singles were to stay in the singles group where it was hoped they would eventually pair up. Tried out the group for two events. It was horrifying. Nothing but a meat market. Men sizing up women and women pissed that there might be new competition, since there were more women than men.
*Moved to a smaller town and visited a small Evangelical church. Two members of their welcome committee visited me and informed me that they didn’t really know what I could do in their church as all their ministries were for families. I had already concluded this from a welcome letter I had received that summarized their ministries.
*Attended a bridal shower for a former student whose mother felt she was flouting convention being a “very mature bride” at all of 25. Her mother’s sister informed me while making small talk that she didn’t really know how to have a conversation with a woman like me who had no husband and kids and said “you really have nothing, do you?” No idea how one answers that question politely.
*Dealt with a principal at a Christian high school who felt that my being an unmarried female employee of his entitled him to be my “spiritual father” and intervene in my personal life. Luckily, he was not at the school for long.

I ended up marrying a Catholic and converting. I worked in a Catholic school for ten years where marital status was not considered a vital issue in regard to one’s spirituality. While many Catholics and even more Protestants wring their hands over the celibacy of the priesthood, I think they have no idea that it at least leads to a church where no one is thoroughly marginalized for remaining unmarried.

@alr. I have a good one. When I first moved to the area I live in now (about 10 years ago) I joined the church singles group. I was amongst the youngest at 36. Everybody else was my age to just over 50. The featured speaker at the retreat was a young guy who gave Christian (TM) dating advice. Yes, you read it correctly, dating advice to a bunch of folks most of whom were significantly older than the misguided speaker. I should have seen the writing on the wall . . .

For your original list at the top of the page, probably the biggest and most confused and frustrated group (among Christian singles) is the…

– hetero-sexual Christian women who want to be married, and who expected to be married, but who have never been married, and they don’t know why they never got married.

This is the group that was repeatedly assured by churches, pastors, Christian books about dating and marriage, that if they prayed enough, had faith (and/or stayed sexually pure and/or stayed pretty – there are all sorts of rules), there was no question that they would get a spouse, in God’s timing, and it would be “God’s best.”

Other major points you might want to discuss later:

1.) Some Christian groups and speakers (such as Al Mohler) are now teaching that prolonged singleness (that is, not getting married, and/or not getting married young) is a sin. Yes, a sin.

1a.) Al Mohler and guys like him are now publishing blogs, books, etc, advising that Christians should get married as young as age 18 – 23

(specific age varies depending on which of these guys you are reading; one author might say age 22 is the ideal, Mohler might say 18 or 19)

2. The excessive focus on marriage and parenting among Christians today has kind of undermined Christ’s teachings/ authority and the Gospel message, in that-

2a. Christ taught that His kingdom would be spread and enlarged by sharing the Gospel with unsaved people (not by people who believe in Him having babies).

(Some of the Reconstructionists/ Quiverfull type movements believe that to take back America and make it godly, people of their view point will have to “out- breed” atheists, liberals, etc., hence the strange, recurring emphasis on marrying young and having lots of kids)

2b. The teachings of Christ that He is to be first, above all, have been ignored in the marriage- family- parenting- crazy Christian culture, such as,

“If you love your father or mother more than you love me, you are not worthy of being mine; or if you love your son or daughter more than me, you are not worthy of being mine.” (Matthew 10:37)

@ alr:

And as a Catholic, I have found that single people are much more accepted in the life of the church.

I hear you, though I’m not Catholic (Lutheran). I spent a lot of time around Catholic religious when I was in my late teens-early 20s and even though that was s while ago, you’re right – there is a FAR healthier attitude toward single people in most Catholic parishes than in evangelical Protestant circles.

I think Ann at 10:46 brings up a good point.
Most discussion of Adam and Eve relate to them as marriage partners but I think there is more to it than that. We are told that God said it was not good for the human to be alone so He created the Woman from the Man. I see this as not just the start of the nuclear family, which is so prized in Western society, but the start of the extended family and of society as a whole. We need friends, neighbours, acquaintances, colleagues, second cousins and great aunts. And jumping to the Gospels and epistles, much of the emphasis is on relating to one another as neighbours (think Good Samaritan and ‘Do as you would be done by’) or as brothers and sisters, ie part of God’s family.
“Ubuntu ungamuntu ngabanye abantu” is a Xhosa proverb meaning “People are people through other people.” I think the Genesis story teaches us that we are made to live in community with others, to be inter-dependent. Marriage relationships are part of that but are not the full picture.

numo wrote:

@ dee: Current Doctor Who or old-school Doctor Who?
My faves are David Tennant and Tom Baker, though Matt Smith is pretty sweet, too.

Jeri is old Who – #3 (Jon Pertwee) is her fave. Mine are #4 (Tom Baker) and #8 (Paul McGann), though I’m a fan of NuWho, too.

I’ll give more thought to the actual topic of the post and respond if I think of something to add.

@ alr

Thanks for the perspective on the Catholic context! I’m intrigued that the attitude towards singles seems to be so much healthier. My (possibly wrong) thought about the monastic life was that singleness seemed to be a radical enough decision that extra-supportive communities were part of choosing it. So, not that giving up marriage was not a sacrifice, but that the very strong community of a convent/monastery helps people with that sacrifice. Whereas in (evangelical) churches, single people, even if they choose it as a vocation, don’t have that kind of option. But as I said, it’s interesting and encouraging to me that a healthier attitude towards singles seems to run all throughout the Catholic church, apart from particular contexts.

alr wrote:

@ Ann:
And as a Catholic, I have found that single people are much more accepted in the life of the church. As a single childless woman over 30, I was not welcome to work with children’s ministries anymore in Evangelical church. This summer, I was welcomed as a VBS teacher with open arms and no questions about my motives. Mass is not a time for marital PDA as I often noticed in the evangelical churches I attended (I remember a single friend of mine talking once about how she longed for the day when she had a husband to hold hands with in church…and her fantasy is not outside reality at any evangelical church I’ve been to).

I had to laugh, but only because what you are saying is SO true! I had forgotten the marital PDA in many Protestant churches. I have never seen that take place during Mass. Granted, I haven’t been a Catholic for long, and maybe you see more of that in other parishes.

Dee,
You asked about my struggles as a widow at church. Although I am still on the roster as a member of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), I stopped attending in June. The last straw this fall was seeing my friend put under church discipline for separating from her abusive, law-breaking husband. My ten year WELS experience has been so devastating that I am experiencing the disorientation experienced by people leaving a cult, as if being a widow was not hard enough. But now I am much happier because I no longer experience the frustration of being shunned due completely to circumstances beyond my control. I feel wonderfully free of the oppressive Christian culture, and I am never going back to a conservative church. I may go to a Progressive, gay-friendly church soon.

I joined the Wisconsin Synod Lutheran Church a week after my husband died, and immediately began attending the five month class required to join the church. The class covered orthodox Christian doctrine and was based on Martin Luther’s Small Catechism. Gender roles were discussed only briefly. No one gave me an orientation to WELS culture, probably because it would sound ridiculous, and the contrast between the doctrine and the WELS culture was extremely confusing. I did not understand until my friend was punished for showing initiative that WELS culture forbids women from ever having an idea. Because my kind first pastor allowed me to ask questions, I also did not understand that in WELS culture disagreeing with the pastor was very much frowned upon.

Because very few people actually talked to me, no one ever explained when I made a cultural blunder and I never knew what I did “wrong”. Instead I got a lot of cold stares which I was unable to interpret. I tried very hard to be friendly, but in retrospect being friendly only acerbated the problem because another “rule” was that people are only supposed to be candid with their own family.

I have a friend who was dating a young lady when they were both graduate students at Texas Tech a number of years ago. They even had planned to elope and get married in their pastor’s office. Unfortunately, she lost her life in an auto accident. He never really dated anyone else and has never married.
He moved back to East Texas after he got his master’s at Tech and got a job in the Houston area, even serving for a time as a youth pastor at his church.
He was asked to resign his non-paying youth pastor’s job when when a new minister was hired by the church because ” He wasn’t married, how could he give advice on the courtship phase of life.”
Later, he moved to another church and after turning down attempts by members of the congregation to ” set him up” with a widow at the church, he had a person accuse him of being a homosexual.
He has not been to a church since….

“If it’s of any comfort to you, being single and male, and 50-something in my case, isn’t any better in that regard.”

No it certainly is not.

KD, When I read about your friend’s story, my heart just broke. Please tell him that he is loved.

@ dee: A lot of the older TV shows are missing, so there are continuity problems.

I used to *love* the cheap, cheesy sets they used (during the Tom Baker era) for other planets. My favorite: the decor (so to speak) of the Doctor’s home planet, Gallifrey. One of the scenes shows the Doctor and another character using what’s obviously an exterior exit at the studio where the series was filmed. They decorated the handrail with what looks like plastic crepe paper! (Imagine the fiery paper plates – aka flying saucers – from Plan Nine from Outer Space and you’ll get the idea, although the Gallifrey scenes are in color and kinda groovy in their shabby chic way…)

@ numo:
Yes it is true that WELS members are supposed to avoid scouting, so I never mentioned that my former boyfriend was heavily involved in scouting. WELS members are also not supposed to pray with Christians from other denominations, even Missouri Synod Lutherans. I ignored that rule all the time.

@ dee: One thing I want to add (partly gained from my time living with the nuns, back in the 70s) is that celibacy and the religious life (being a priest, monk or nun) was *heavily* idealized prior to Vatican II; also that it was presented as the highest form of service to God.

I knew one nun who tole me that if she’d known then (as a young woman considering the convent) what she knew now (in the early 70s), she would not have entered the convent… and eventually, she did leave and get married. She was one of the most dedicated nuns I knew.

It was very hard – in many ways – for religious to lead normal lives until the changes of Vatican II. An example: young nuns were not permitted to go to weddings (in this order and likely in others), even of immediate family members, because it was assumed that they’d end up leaving the religious life. Instead, the wedding party had to come and visit you in the convent parlor.

I wish I was making that up, but it was standard operating procedure for a very long time.

@ numo: P.s.: there’s a great deal of idealization of virginity (or at least, there was), and many Catholic men struggled with a view of women as either Madonnas or … whores. You can see that playing out in many Italian films of the 50s and 60s, and it certainly has been a *big* thing in other nominally Catholic countries.

That kind of thinking has a lot to do with some Catholics’ view of Mary, but I *don’t* want to get into that here! (I will say that most of the nuns, priests and laypeople that I knew back in the 70s had totally ditched veneration of Mary and other saints, other than remembering them as good people who are part of the church universal and who can serve as an example for us.)

Readers may be asking themselves how did I ever get myself into such a cult-like church? The answer is that WELS initially seemed like a conventional Protestant church. The New Member classes were very straight-forward. Except in passing, bizarre rules like not associating with scouting were not discussed. Because so few people talked to me, I kept wondering what social blunders I was making, and redoubled my efforts to be more friendly. Finally after 5 years I made a friend who was a lifelong member, and she explained a lot of things to me that were previously very confusing. Through reading, discussions with my friend, and observation, I slowly pieced together an understanding of the bizarre WELS culture.

And why did I not leave, many people will wonder. Two years after my husband died, I moved West and enrolled in graduate school in the physical sciences. My studies were very demanding, I had an autoimmune disorder that almost made me lose my vision, and I was not ready to deal with the hassle of finding a new church. A few years ago, I did investigate other churches but decided to stay because the WELS church was close to campus and I needed a parking permit. As I got close to graduation and a time when I no longer needed a parking permit, I decided to bank upon my previous good attendance at weekly services and simply stopped attending.

Teri Anne wrote:

The opening song was a Lutheran hymn, and the Bible was quoted frequently in the speeches. But my pastor was unhappy because the ceremony also included a Native American prayer.

I’m Native American and a tribal member of the Menominees in Northern Wisconsin (but I now live in Southern Calif.). The Jesuits were the first Europeans to make contact with my people, and through a syncretic approach, they were able to produce a lasting Catholic legacy. Evangelical Protestantism on the other hand was never able to gain a foothold amongst the tribe.

@ Numo:

To play devil’s advocate for just a moment – and I don’t agree with the broader LCMS reaction to that prayer service – it wasn’t just different Christian denominations who were present at the prayer service in Newtown. There were also Jews, Muslims and Bahai. So I can understand why some would be upset, though I don’t agree. Now, off devil’s advocate. : )

The Newtown LCMS church is in my district and that fuss was kept very quiet locally. I didn’t find out about it until last week. The district president who was involved (not the same pastor who attended the prayer service) is actually preaching at my church tomorrow, but unfortunately I will be playing the organ elsewhere.

@ Numo:

“I will say that most of the nuns, priests and laypeople that I knew back in the 70s had totally ditched veneration of Mary and other saints, other than remembering them as good people who are part of the church universal and who can serve as an example for us.”

Funny story. When I explained the Immaculate Conception to my dad – raised Catholic, family has been either German or French-Canadian Catholic for ~400 years (with the notable exception of a line of New England Puritans whom none of the living family members believe me about) – he looked at me like I had rocks in my head. He swore up and down he had never heard that before in the Catholic church and he always thought the IC referred to Jesus’ conception. Maybe he wasn’t paying attention in catechism class? : )

@ Hester: A few months ago I found some very extensive documentation (a thesis, iirc) on the split between the LCMS and WELS over “prayer fellowship.”

It was absolutely mind-boggling (as in, scarcely believable, except that the documentation was extremely thorough).

I thank god that I was raised LCA!

@ Hester: I don’t think St. Louis is very happy about congregations like yours, Hester. I’ve been around one that was similar, back in the mid-late 80s (in the D.C. area).

And then there are lay organizations like the Brothers of John the Steadfast – Miguel mentioned them once in a comment here, and I Googled them. I found some scary results (including their official website).

Muff and Wenatchee, another reason for the preponderance of Eastern Orthodoxy in Alaska may be due to the fact that until the later 19th century it was actually Russian territory (you probably knew that anyway). But it’s interesting that many of the Alaskans have remained with that denomination.

A tendency I noted in one church influenced by the SGM/Joshua Harris thing was the tendency to suddenly start segregating singles, including those of working adult age (say 21 to 39). Even if this was only for Bible studies, it seemed to me bizarre especially in light of the fact that most if not all of these members would have been freely working among both sexes during the day. Also I noticed the age of that group was then lowered from 18-40 to 18-25, after which people were placed in home groups instead.

I would agree however that teens below aged 18 mixing with single people in their 20s and 30s is not healthy or even of practical use, unless maybe the teenager has already started working full-time (which is less likely these days as most seem to continue in education until 18).

Ann wrote:

it sometimes seems to me as if a logical consequence of the definition and sacralization of a “biblical” view of marriage always leads to the marginalization of (any) singles, because this definition always goes back to the creation story and thus the idea that only man and woman as a pair constitute the image of God- and if this is true, then why is the argument that singles are deficient wrong? Adam was not good alone, and so a woman was created as a marriage partner….rather than another creation choice for companionship, such as a whole additional group of human beings, or another man as a friend, etc. I have been troubled for a while by what seems an attempt to fix the image of God- to fix how we are supposed to bring God into the world- into literal physical terms. If man/woman in union is the image of God and yet singleness is also good, is there something off in the whole analogy?

Ann, you raise an excellent point and I think its vital to work from a proper exegesis of scripture to get what God intentions were in the creation of man (plural).

Heres my viewpoint and maybe it will shed some light depending upon whether you believe what Im saying is true to scripture. As I see it, God (meaning Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is a perfect community of Oneness. Within the trinity or the godhead, there is no lack of harmony or unity, only perfect communion and self-sustaining relationship. God said, “Let Us make man in our image, male and female,” and so He did. But its not that God was in need of companionship. He created us out of His love, in my view, to share His Life with us.

So out of the ground he formed the man. And after having done so, God had Adam wisely name all the animals. In doing so Adam saw all the amazing creatures and their companion. He saw they all were given the means by which they could produce after their own kind, right? And so God helped Adam to realize that he, too, needed a companion like what the animals had, “but among them no suitable helper was found.” God had set the stage to reveal to Adam his will. And then he caused a deep sleep to fall upon him and from his rib (not from the ground as if to make another seperate creature with unique DNA – but using the same DNA material found in Adam’s bone/body) he created the woman. And when Adam saw her, after having seen all the animals and their counterparts, he knew for sure that she was “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.”

Eve was the suitable helper to Adam because by himself he was unable to create community like what was found in the Godhead. The animals could all create families and offspring but Adam was missing that ability, which is why God said it wasnt good that he was alone. It wasnt good because he couldnt create community, which was Gods intention all along. “Let US make man (plural) in OUR image..” So, Eve wasnt an afterthought or created as a subordinate intended to improve the quality of male life in the srnse the word “helper” is so often understood. Rather they were both 100% made in Gods image, just as Jesus is 100% God, the Holy Spirit is 100% God and the Father is 100% God. They are all perfect equals as are the male of the species and the female of the species. And the woman doesnt need the man to be fully human, nor does the female. The one does not complete the humanity of the other. But they need each other to “be fruitful and multiply.” And in doing so they are able to create communities of oneness.

But it is most certainly not the case that a man or a woman has to be married to enjoy full and unbroken communion with God because Jesus our brother has, by his death, resurrection, and ascension removed all the obstacles and healed our alienation from God. And the Spirit is our Helper who rescues us from our alone state and catches us up into a relationship with God our Father, in Whom we are perfectly accepted in the Beloved. And that is what Eve as “helper” did for Adam – she rescued (the actual definition of the word helper used in Genesis to descirbe Gods purpose in Eve) him from his alienation – from his “aloneness” – from his inability by himself to create community and thus in doing so reflect the Community that exists in the plurality and equality (not hierarchy) of the Trinity.

So, none of should ever feel incomplete or half human if we are unmarried. And no one who tells others their being “single” (or a female) disqualifies then from ministry because they are misrepresenting God’s will to us and being an obstacle to all God wants to do in and through us as fully completed participants in the Kingdom of God – glory to God!!

Very interesting conversation. I plan to spend more time reading all the different comments and the next posts about these issues.

Personally, I can’t say that as a 33 year old single male I have noticed any particular attitude towards me related with this issue in the church I attend, which is actually pretty large… But I think I’m still relatively new to the evangelical waters and many things still surprise me. Besides, I have a personality which, at times, makes me a bit oblivious about what’s going on around me. I simply do what I consider right, not necessarily considering what others may be thinking, and have my peculiar ways of looking at things.

However, you’ve made me think about all these issues and it’s true that there may be be a certain level of compartimentalisation in the congregation. For example, there’s a large group of university students and they have their own programme, but there tends to be some mingling with the rest of the congregation. Also, there was a 20’s group which I attended for a couple of years. However, you had to leave when you reached your 30’s, and the group was disbanded when somebody thought that the following year there wouldn’t be enough members. There’s no singles ministry or anything like that as far as I know.

I’ve also got the impression that there may be more chances of being invited to certain social events if you’re in a relationship, even if you’re not yet married. I’ve heard some friends talking about that. One has commented that as a single female, also in her 30’s, she’s noticed some kind of marginalisation.

However, from the little I know, it seems that the situation in my church is quite far from what happens in other places… And, really, I’ve never heard anything about being considered homosexual simply because I’m single past certain age. I wonder if, in my case, it’s different because I’m still a postgraduate student.

That last point, which some commented here, really shocked me… Because, not talking whether you act on it or not, what’s the problem on being homosexual and being in church? I guess that, for some, simply having those tendencies is a horrible sin.

dee wrote:

Martos
“Because, not talking whether you act on it or not, what’s the problem on being homosexual and being in church? I guess that, for some, simply having those tendencies is a horrible sin.”
There are a number of people in the United States who believe that the mere orientation is a sin. We did a series on homosexuality and Christianity in which we discussed some of these issues. This attitude is deeply distubing to us.

The series was great! To start at the very beginning (a very good place to start)…

http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/08/13/homosexuality-towards-compassion-we-need-your-questions/

@Martos, sadly, we still have people in the good ol’ U S and A who think that LGBT folks should be rounded up and imprisoned, or even worse! These types are, thankfully, quite in the minority.

Martos wrote:

Besides, I have a personality which, at times, makes me a bit oblivious about what’s going on around me. I simply do what I consider right, not necessarily considering what others may be thinking, and have my peculiar ways of looking at things.

Hi Martos, I could relate to this. Ive had to learn how to be more awake and aware of what was going on, what people were thinking, etc. Generally speaking I tend to mind my own business, do what I consider is the right thing like you said, and not worry about what other people think too much. For this reason, I didnt notice for a long time how strictly compartmentalized everything had become in the church I was a member of, because I was happy to go with my own flow, not recognizing how they had made channels and strove to control the flow of life to narrowly confined channels. I credit my good friend who is a quiet, extremely observant (naturally), and introverted for showing me how to be more observant. Ive learned it by hanging out around with her. I have discernment, but Ive had to learn to be more observant and with that proactive.

I wonder if, in my case, it’s different because I’m still a postgraduate student.

I would say so. I was thinking about Al Mohlers comment and the post here about him having made the statement about how he thinks its a sin to delay marriage. Others may disagree, and Im not saying marriage shouldnt be about love, mutual admiration and respect because of course it should be. But I think that one of the biggest reaso ns people should choose to get married is because they feel they are ready and willing to start a family.

I say this because I saw a lot of young people in their early 20’s getting married when I was in SGM and heard of many more afterwards. CJ Mahaneys daughters never dated that I know of and each married relatively quickly the first guy that came along. This became a pattern and Josh Harris and his book I Kissed Dating Goodbye was the textbook on relationships, which meant going on dates with variuos people was virtually a crime. So kids got married young, it would seem, so they could kiss and stuff freely and all they wanted – just as long as they were married. But in a many of these cases were couples married early, they really delayed having children. And I get that because having a child (ren) is a total deal changer. Your own youth is replaced with having to invest your time, energy, finances into supporting the life of a dependent child.

So I had trouble with Mohlers statement for lots of reasons and I wondered how he felt about couples who got married quite young but then delayed having children like many of them do. Would he say thats also a sin, barring no fertility issues of course? It just comes across to me like some early marriages boil down to having ones own bed buddy. But marriage is more than that in my view. So I think its best to wait until you have gained an education and sufficient work experience so as to have come into your own mind, and then get married if youre prepared to sustain a challenging relationship alongside a preparedness for children. Up until that time date whenever the possibility arises, because there’s so much to be learned about ourselves and what works and doesnt work. Thats normal! But I know my position puts me in the crosshairs of those in favor of gay marriage, because I cant get past marriage being for the purpose of procreation. But I also know I was born a heterosexual and didnt choose to be one. So, Im still trying to come to grips with it all. I cant say Im for gay marriage, but Im not against homosexuals. Which brings me to your next point…

That last point, which some commented here, really shocked me… Because, not talking whether you act on it or not, what’s the problem on being homosexual and being in church? I guess that, for some, simply having those tendencies is a horrible sin.I totally agree. The church needs to be have a generous all-comers policy. And pedophilia is certainly not limited to one particular sexual orientation, thats for sure.

Geez Im sorry I got to rambling and missed saying that I think it makes a difference that Martos is in post grad school because I think people tend to recognize when someone is occupied with something that requires a lot of their time & energy. Because of that hey have a valid reason to “delay” marriage, as it were. Their singleness is socially acceptable. But life takes on many different forms and sometimes just getting the basics down take a lot of ones energy. So I really think people should be given a WIDE BERTH when it comes to readiness for marriage, without saying things that make people think they should hurry up and get hitched esp with the divorce rate being what it is! And thise people who always say things like their marriage is made in heaven are perpetuating a myth!

@ Daisy:

2a. You left out Muslims. THEY’RE the real target whose fertility we need to outdo, according to one Mohler statement.

Here’s a real question that I have. If your living in sin, so to say, will you go to hell? I’ve been thinking about this because I have young adult children. I’m sick of worrying about this because of them. What is the truth about sexual misconduct? Or whatever you want to call it.

@ Tikatu: There are some videos of the 1st two Doctors available on Netflix streaming…

Turtle, you can email me: my first and last name (no spaces) @ yahoo dot com

In thinking about the Pastor that was asked to step down because his wife left him, I rembered something…. Pastor Charles Stanley. His church voted to keep him on even though his wife filed for divorce in the 1990’s. He is a Southern Baptist. He has always been a good teacher of Scripture. So, to my mind, Charles Stanley is living proof that a single person is qualified to be a leader.

@numo–

I am well aware of the, shall we say, “diversity” of views and practices among American Catholics. I happen to live next door to what is widely regarded as the most conservative diocese in the U.S. We have concluded, in fact, that our future options are a bit limited by our desire to not live in that diocese. For a few examples of their (mis)adventures–you are basically not allowed to receive communion in your hands; some parishes have a dress code for mass; women/girls are excluded from altar service, being lectors and may only cantor if a male is unavailable; EMHCs are never allowed; and they have founded their own seminary lest priests in the diocese be corrupted by liberal ideas such as that people wearing sneakers should be allowed in church.
In my own parish, we have a family that shows up in the front row with wife and daughters wearing oversized prairie dresses and not allowed to speak for themselves. They occasionally show up at parish events in order to later complain about them to the priest. VBS was a big hot button for them. The father stood in the back for morning singing time then chewed out our senior pastor and the VBS directory for the inappropriate music with its inappropriate actions including hand waving.

@ alr: Are you in the Midwest, by any chance? (No need to answer; it’s just that the relatives I mention are out there, in a diocese that sounds somewhat like yours.)

I really feel for everyone who made the Great leap Forward post-Vatican II, as they’re getting squashed by a lot of the hierarchy now. 🙁

@ alr & Numo:

And judging by alr’s comment all the Catholics in my area are very easygoing too…but it’s New England so what can I say…

If they didn’t let women cantor around here there would be no cantors. Funny story about sneakers – I sing in Catholic choirs and the first time I sang at Mass, I thought my robe would be long enough to hide the sneakers. It wasn’t and the bishop was coming that day. I had no other shoes and I had to walk right in front of the bishop in my sneakers…

The diocese alr described probably won’t even let Protestants sing in their choirs.

@ dee: I agree that it’s very important.

@ Pam: I think Rory’s a lovely guy, but not for me.

Matt Smith, otoh… (Is it TMI to say that sometimes I wish I was River Song? That’s for her general kick-*ss-ness, not just her ongoing romance.)

@ turtle:

“If your living in sin, so to say, will you go to hell? … What is the truth about sexual misconduct?”
***********

turtle,

This is something I’ve begun to explore in my mind — although i’ve only scratched the surface of the topic.

*does the bible actually say “you must not have sex before marriage”? I haven’t embarked on poring over what the bible actually says.

*2 people are in love. they want to commit their lives to each other. they want to formalize it through a wedding ceremony. a few nights before their ceremony, they have sex. this is sin? this is wrong? what kind of hokus pokus does a “ceremony” confer on them that makes their commitment any more authentic than it already was?

*2 people are in love. they want to commit their lives to each other. they do commit their lives to each other. they see ceremonies as perfunctory, costing a lot of money, being unnecessarily complicated (logistically and relationally). But more importantly, unnecessarily complicated emotionally. They see a wedding ceremony/reception as being all about the event itself and not at all about what they are actually doing (committing their lives to each other). They choose to marry themselves, in their own way, on their own terms, as is meaningful to them. They go on with their lives, and have a good, healthy relationship through the years.

They are in sin? This is wrong? Their relationship is invalid, illegitimate?

*If the christian community recognizes a couple as married who were married in a hindu, buddhist, jewish, mormon, islamic, etc. tradition, will the christian community not recognize a couple as married who have a common law marriage? who married themselves?

*Does God recognize a couple as married who were married in a hindu, buddhist, jewish, mormon, islamic, etc. tradition? A common law marriage? A couple having married themselves?

*Does it all boil down to a man in a suit deemed an authority to legitimize a relationship???

*Isn’t commitment itself the issue?

elastigirl wrote:

hello, martos. I’d be interested to hear more about what has surprised you.

Hi elastigirl. Thanks for the question. I have been thinking a lot about it today, and I’m finding it hard to pinpoint many specific ‘surprises’ at the moment. However, here are a few thoughts and a bit of context which may help to understand where I’m coming from.

About 4 years ago I left a particular church that many openly declare as a cult, but which, on the surface, may not look that different from other conservative denominations. However, I had many disagreements with their doctrines and ended up leaving after spending most of my life in that church. At the time I had several friends at the Christian Union of my university, so I decided to visit their churches. After a few months I visited the church where I’m at the moment and decided to stay there.

I quickly embraced everything I found in my new evangelical church, which tends towards the Reformed side of things… Mostly , I think, because I didn’t know any better. For some reason I thought that was the main line of theology besides Catholicism. I knew something about Arminianism, but that was it. During that time I felt very excited and I even started thinking BIG about ministry… Don’t-waste-your-life style.

However, after a couple of years I started feeling a bit lost and restless. It was frustrating because leaving my previous church hadn’t been easy and I thought that I had finally arrived to a place where all those questions and doubts would be stilled. And since then the restlessness has only grown.

I realised something important: when I left the first church I also abandoned a distinct sense of identity and a particular culture which, somehow, defined who I was. It was easy to know, according to what they taught, who you were within the context of the church and the world. You see, we were a people with a special message. But when I made the move I simply substituted my previous identity with a new Evangelical identity.

At the moment I’m still a member of the evangelical church because I think a lot of it is good… But I still feel restless. I feel uprooted. The last few months have been particularly tough in that sense, because it’s like I’m in some sort of Christian ‘no man’s land’… And as I don’t have any particular attachment to the term ‘Evangelical’, I feel like I wouldn’t mind abandoning it.

Maybe what surprised me the most is what I found out about myself… However, I’d like to mention a few things:

– I was initially surprised to find a lot of the same attitudes which were very familiar to me in the ‘cult’ church… I guess a lot of it is just human nature. And I should add that, generally, people looked and felt more ‘free’ in the new church… But, still, I came across legalism in unhealthy doses as well.
– In Evangelical churches there’s a lot of talk about living according to the Bible, but I do think there’s also a culture that underlines a lot of what you do and how you do it. And although much of it may not actually be Biblical, very often is accepted as such. There’s a strong sense of identity in being ‘Evangelical’, despite all the talk about only finding your identity in Jesus.
– I think that part of my restlessness have been caused by discovering a thousand different theological responses to a single question, even from within one particular school of thought… At times that can be very tiring.
– I was surprised to find out how influential many American pastors and authors are, especially people from the Neo-Calvinist persuasion. For example, some people seem to be John Piper fanboys… However, large portions of Christianity seem to be largely ignored.

I’ll stop here… I need to go to bed, and I think my post is long enough by now. But I can continue with this topic at another time.

@ Evie:
Thank you very much for your interesting comment.

From my experience I got the impression that, in Christian circles in the UK, many tend to marry younger and after a relatively shorter time of being together than in the general population… Not saying that it is bad in itself, but it’s an interesting thing… I guess that some, as you said, marry to be able to do certain things they’re not supposed to do in other circumstances.

However, I wonder if that’s human nature as well… You take some decisions, maybe when you’re a bit too young or unprepared, and then have to live with it, growing up a bit faster to face it all.

However, I do believe it’s bad when that is encouraged and used with other purposes in mind. For example, with the idea of producing a lot of ‘Christian’ babies… I’m not sure if there is any influence from Al Mohler and his ideas over here, but I know quite a few who bought those books written by Joshua Harris about kissing dating goodbye and boys meeting girls and what not.

@ elastigirl: I’m with you on all of this, in that I think the answers are about what people decide in their own hearts and minds, and not ins some “magical” claptrap re. marriage ceremonies and licenses.

Which will set me apart from our Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters, but then, I have the “excuse” that Lutherans only believe in two sacraments – baptism and holy communion.

If marriage itself (as in, the commitment of two people to each other) is so important that it’s there in Genesis (without lots of money spent and general folderol and stress), well then… I think that also is something that validates marriage, period. (I will spare everyone my further views on the LGBT marriage issue, but I suspect most of you regulars know where I stand on that as well.)

@ numo:

numo– actually, i’ve never run across a christian person/entity who did not consider a marriage legitimate which had been performed under the auspsices of a faith other than christianity.

But, my reasoning is if “being married” is so all-important to the christian faith, yet christians recognize a couple as married under a hindu, islamic, etc. tradition, then all it really comes down to a mere ceremony of sorts…. and that’s it????

what’s the big deal about that????

@ elastigirl: You know, I think American evangelical culture is really good at making something out of nothing… but then, as Martos said earlier, it’s a human tendency to do so. The church (not just evangelical churches) often attempts to sanctify or “Jesus-ize” things that have nothing to do with Christ.

Like big fancy weddings performed by ordained ministers rather than by secular civil servants.

numo, elastigirl and others have brought up an interesting point. How do we define a “legitimate” marriage, especially given the differences among denominations and religions. Is it the proclamation of vows before a minister, a signed legal document filed with the government, a simple spoken commitment between two people in love or a signed contract between parties? Are interfaith marriages valid in both religions? A distant relative of mine and his wife had a marriage ceremony, performed by his dad, in which they committed themselves to each other (dad was an ordained minister). But for the legal side they simply registered their marriage (common-law marriage) instead of a filing for a full marriage license. There are some family members who don’t view this union as a legitimate marriage because of the lack of a marriage license.

Dee,

I attended a church once that took a literal interpretation of the KJV: “…the husband of one wife…” 1 Tim 3:2. He must have exactly one wife. Not two or more, not zero. If an elder’s wife died, he was immediately un[dis?]qualified to be an elder and was required to resign. It happened, too, before I started attending there.

Mandy wrote:

Every single time I was told that the nursery or children’s ministry was desperately in need of volunteers and that it was crucial for singles to fill those positions so that the parents could attend services. The singles ministry had its events and Bible studies during the week. So apparently all singles are good for is changing diapers and keeping kids from burning down the building.

Singles are a free labor pool to do all the church scutwork so the marrieds can Focus on Their Families, nothing more.

And the only way out of it is to Get Married and be allowed to sit at the grownups’ table with the other grownups.

numo wrote:

@ dee: One thing I want to add (partly gained from my time living with the nuns, back in the 70s) is that celibacy and the religious life (being a priest, monk or nun) was *heavily* idealized prior to Vatican II; also that it was presented as the highest form of service to God.

Just like Missionary to Darkest Africa or Kickin’ Praise & Worship Singer is among Evangelicals.

Unicorn Guy
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

The new preacher wanted it, so he got it….never mind we ” think this thing through.”

Off topic, but the latest episode of SGM Detox is in incredible.

@ Oasis:

So, in your thinking then, if common law commitment is accepted in a state or country, then it would be acceptable in God’s eyes? (Not trying to put you on the spot). When I really stop and think about the concept of marriage, it seems that much of the reason behind the institution is more of a legal issue concerning combining and separating money issues. I suppose the legal act of marriage can be as much a protection for people as anything else. It seems more fit to protect against the brokenness of the world/people.

Marshall Coleman wrote:

If so, the voting process the CLC pastors set up, that was designed to make it look as though members had a say in the organization’s decision to leave SGM, was sheer pageantry that borders on/perhaps is fraud, in my opinion.

The Baba Saddam/Comrade Dear Leader school of holding show elections.

Just like any Third World dictator.

@ Teri Anne:
Terry Ann,
I am soooooooo with you on this. I have to attend church out of love for my wife and family who deem it of supreme importance. If not for them though, so out if there. I admire your courage and your stand. Rock on.

@ Bridget:
Maybe I’m just tired. My mind is a little fuzzy trying to follow the conversation on common-law marriage. Are people here arguing on whether or not it’s legitimate? Just trying to understand. My reason for asking is that I realized, after the fact of a rather large church wedding, that I am only common-law married. My state does recognize this. But it was a crushing blow to find out it wasn’t “legal.” I followed my church’s wedding plan papers, which did not include obtaining a license. They determine whether or not you can even marry in their “church.” Everything, including who you marry, has to meet with the ministers’ approval. So, I just followed their rules, and the license issue never even occurred to me. I really struggle with this one. I did everything “right,” and I’m not legally married. How would other Christians view my marriage?

@ StacieMao: Check the TWW blogroll…

@ Bridget:

One more thing — you can obtain a license and go before a judge to say “I do” at any time if it will ease your mind. If you are in a different state than where you were married, you may now be considered married if that state has common law marriage status. You’d need to check that out.

@ dee: I honestly think Lewis was going out on a limb on this topic, but that’s just me… A legal marriage is a legal marriage, though I suspect part of his take has to do with a misinterpretation of Anglican views on marriage. (Just a hunch; I have no proof!)

@ Bridget:
I don’t want to high jack this thread either. Thank you so much for your answer. That really helps.

Ann wrote:

we need to remember as you say that from Adam & Eve came all community and not just family. Too narrow an emphasis leaves the impression, I sometimes think, of just a marriage rather than (as was the case) all humanity

I’m glad you picked up on that Ann because that was what I really wanted to end up emphasizing. Thank you!

I love classic literature with strong female characters. Sometimes I think what would this one do or what would that one do. I don’t know how classic Anne of Green Gables is but I love Marilla Cuthbert in the story. She certainly was strong and had purpose. There were times during my sgm years when those characters gave me some relief from the insanity of church. I’ m not single but we are all humans trying to get by on this earth.

@ BTDT:

This is what I learned this winter about historical views on what made a marriage “legitimate.” Don’t know if this contributes to this discussion, but I’ve often found a historical perspective often helps. Seems that folks in the past would definitely have considered your marriage to be legitimate as long you committed yourself to your husband and moved in. : )

“The Fourth Lateran Council’s [1215] listing of marriage as a sacrament was an important step in a trend that had been gaining momentum in the previous century – demanding a church ceremony for legitimation of a marriage. In the year 1000 the majority of people in Christian Europe were not married in a church ceremony. Marriage involved Germanic-style cohabitation, frequently signified by the giving of a ring. By 1200 perhaps half the people in Western Europe, particularly among the wealthier and more literate classes, were married by a priest. After the Fourth Lateran Council, sacramental marriage in the church became the prescribed norm, although in 1500 there were still many peasants who were married by the simple rite of cohabitation. If the family involved had property, church marriage was now a necessity in order to assure legitimacy of offspring and uncontested inheritance. This was a way of increasing the importance of the priesthood in everyday life.”

-Norman Cantor, Civilization of the Middle Ages, p. 419

FYI regarding state marriage licenses – I believe on the “No Longer Quiverfull” blog (or could be another linked there) that Vision Forum and the Botkins have discouraged couples from getting a marriage license. It may have been discussed on TWW.

Just like SGM’s obsession with the wicked “civil authorities” my guess is that they don’t want their “godly” marriages “tainted” by the requirements of the state.

Those people, like the issue with Steig Larsson, will be SOL if one of the spouses dies. In the eyes of the state they will not be married.

What a bloody crock and how criminally irresponsible. According to this logic then I guess wills are “ungodly” as the family patriarch will dispose of the deceased person’s assets? Sheesh.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

I wish we could take what we have here at TWW and bring it into the “institutionalized” church. We interact pretty freely here regardless our “marital status,” theology, gender, etc.

Isn’t it interesting how the internet has been used to broaden communication between people and worked to break down walls that normally divide human beings along the lines you mentioned such as married or single, theology, gender – and I might add nationality, economic class, race and age?

And isn’t that what Jesus worked to accomplish? To break down all those same barriers and make us one in Him?

Yet, what do we find in the very place where people are supposed to be experiencing that freedom of expression and mutual interaction? We usually find those walls that divide us, and sometimes more narrowly defined than the world! Yet those very church institutions will be the ones to claim how counter-culture they are! They are not counter culture at all! Their institutions are built on worldly principles verses the principles of God’s Kingdom. Consequently the communication and interaction that God wills to happen between His people for the purpose of edification and building up the Body is suppressed and controlled by church leaders that place their own manmade restrictions on it. Like the scripture asks, “When the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

I always thinks its rather a litmus test as well when you see these same groups that are structured on obsolete, legalistic, worldly principles who denounce the internet and the free exchange of information between all kinds of people. I think they despise it when they aren’t the ones controlling the terms and conditions upon which unity and agreement can be established and built between people, especially when it involves people who come together in agreement over their spiritually abusive conduct and behavior! Clearly they don’t like the people to have any power!

@Hester
It’s good to know that, historically, the church viewed a Christian ceremonial marriage as legitimate. 🙂

@Rafiki
Yes, I believe my church had the same views as Vision Forum and the Botkins. (Though I’d never heard of either of them until after I was out of my church) The fallout that would take place should one of us die has me concerned.

So, if there are any single people reading this blog who belong to a church that does not allow marriage licenses, please consider this carefully. These are typically the same types of churches that will “disfellowship” you for minor infractions (like not agreeing with the pastor), and leave you in the larger world where your marriage may be questionable. In retrospect, I wished we’d left the church and had a civil ceremony.

@ BeenThereDoneThat:

Sorry to get worked up in my last comment, BTDT. Didn’t mean for my foot stomping editorializing on Vision Forum to sound as if I was casting judgement your particular situation or to cause you to feel bad. 🙁

I think that getting the license is analogous to having a will drawn up is all. “Dotting the ‘i’s’ and crossing the ‘t’s’ ” and protecting oneself regarding the law – as you noted. 🙂

alr wrote:

The church is just not meant to be the social center of everyone’s life. And mass is not for fellowship with each other. An evangelical friend basically chewed me out once when she found out that my husband I don’t go to mass at the same time every week because “how are (we) able to get close to the people (we) are fellowshiping with?” My answer was that we don’t go to mass to hang out with the other parishioners but to worship and receive the eucharist. She was confused and upset by that idea.

Alr – that is very interesting, and something that I’d never realised properly until I read your post. And I can’t help but make an observation here.

However confused and upset your evangelical friend may have been by your actions, the reality is that she almost certainly doesn’t get any real fellowship in her Sunday meetings either. There’s coffee and chit-chat, to be sure, and possibly some praying together here and there. But she’ll get perhaps two minutes of conversation with each person. That ain’t koinonia.

It saddens me to say this, but the cheap slinging around of the word “fellowship” in many congregations, both evangelical and charismatic, has meant that many Christians have never really discovered true friendship. You cannot truly share the ups, downs, triumphs and tragedies of life together in a traditional evangelical service. For that matter, you can’t actually do a fat lot together in any kind of artificial, liturgical setting. Real life happens out there as we face challenges together, and if I’m honest, I’ve had far closer fellowship with my rock-climbing buddies as we worked away at a hard problem on Yorkshire gritstone – until we’d all beaten it – than I have in most church settings.

@ BeenThereDoneThat: Re. marriage licenses – it’s hard enough for widows (legally) in terms of finances after a husband dies. For someone who *doesn’t* have the correct legal status, it could be even more of a nightmare, especially if there are young children involved.

@ Hester: That *is* funny!

numo wrote:

@ Nick Bulbeck: Or
– they didn’t quite know where they were going with the character at first
my money is on this and my (possibly) whether Eccleston had the freedom to develop the character

Eccleston’s departure after only one series caused a little surprise and was shrouded in a certain amount of mystery; Eccleston himself was fairly tight-lipped about it and only later revealed that he left “because I could not get along with the senior people. I left because of politics. I did not see eye to eye with them. I didn’t agree with the way things were being run. I didn’t like the culture that had grown up around the series. So I left, I felt, over a principle.” Which was a shame.

@ Nick Bulbeck:
Nick – I liked him too.

Did you hide behind the sofa when you watched Dr Who as a kind? I know I did 🙂

Sorry to take us a little off topic, but I’ve been reading the transcript of that comment by Christopher Eccleston and I was struck by this part of it. Bear with me, everyone: this is instructive.

I thought to remain, which would have made me a lot of money and given me huge visibility, the price I would have had to pay was to eat a lot of shit. I’m not being funny about that. I didn’t want to do that and it comes to the art of it, in a way. I feel that if you run your career and – we are vulnerable as actors and we are constantly humiliating ourselves auditioning. But if you allow that to go on, on a grand scale you will lose whatever it is about you and it will be present in your work.

If you allow your desire to be successful and visible and financially secure – if you allow that to make you throw shades on your parents, on your upbringing, then you’re knackered. You’ve got to keep something back, for yourself, because it’ll be present in your work. A purity or an idealism is essential or you’ll become– you’ve got to have standards, no matter how hard work that is. So it makes it a hard road, really.

You know, it’s easy to find a job when you’ve got no morals, you’ve got nothing to be compromised, you can go, ‘Yeah, yeah. That doesn’t matter. That director can bully that prop man and I won’t say anything about it’. But then when that director comes to you and says ‘I think you should play it like this’ you’ve surely got to go ‘How can I respect you, when you behave like that?’

I think that captures the essence of why many (not all, but many) people remain in abusive/controlling churches. I spend a decade in such a church because I honestly believed that it would in some way give me a secure career spiritually (it certainly wasn’t going to benefit me financially). I did this despite all the s**t I had to eat in the process. Of course, when you do that, “on a grand scale you will lose whatever it is about you and it will be present in your work” – which in the context of an actor speaking, means that it will diminish all of your God-given gifts and calling.

Evie wrote:

I always thinks its rather a litmus test as well when you see these same groups that are structured on obsolete, legalistic, worldly principles who denounce the internet and the free exchange of information between all kinds of people. I think they despise it when they aren’t the ones controlling the terms and conditions upon which unity and agreement can be established and built between people, especially when it involves people who come together in agreement over their spiritually abusive conduct and behavior! Clearly they don’t like the people to have any power!

This is one reason I’m alarmed to find that authoritarianism is creeping into the SBC and other denominations. The problem of marital status segregation will likely get worse. And the pastor won’t want to hear any criticism of how HIS church is falling short.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

It saddens me to say this, but the cheap slinging around of the word “fellowship” in many congregations, both evangelical and charismatic, has meant that many Christians have never really discovered true friendship.

Further confusing the issue, American Christianese uses “Fellowship” as both noun and verb to describe any sort of interaction. Some splinter churches who don’t want to be called churches also call themselves “Christian Fellowships” instead of churches.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

We’ll probably register our common-law marriage with the county.

If you have to schlep over to the courthouse you might as well make a party of it by going out afterwards for a big “honeymoon” dinner with your husband. 🙂

@ Nick Bulbeck: He’s a very talented actor, and I can easily see him doing Shakespeare and the like.

Also, I have no doubt that what he says about the insider stuff is all true…

Dee – You might check out Mike Pearl. In my KoolAid days, we heard him speak several times and he used to pretty much brag about the fact that his adult children were not getting married licenses with the heathen government.