Building a Free Educational Website
- Thread starter expiated
- Start date
The Hillsdale 1776 Curriculum Terms of Use
In consideration for User’s access to the Curriculum (defined below) and for other good and valuable consideration including the educational value provided therein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties, including to be legally bound agree as follows:
In consideration for User’s access to the Curriculum (defined below) and for other good and valuable consideration including the educational value provided therein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties, including to be legally bound agree as follows:
- Curriculum. For purposes of these Terms of Use, the Curriculum includes a collection of educational resources intended to guide primary and secondary school instruction on the history of the United States of America and philosophical principles of its founding at a much deeper level and as a counter to other projects attempting to dilute and distort the significance of America’s founding and its founders. (“Curriculum”)
- License to Use Curriculum. Subject to the terms and conditions of these Terms of Use, Hillsdale hereby grants to User a non-exclusive, non-transferrable, revocable license to use and access the Curriculum exclusively for the User’s use in connection with: (a) the User’s instruction of primary and secondary school students; or (b) the User’s personal education and enrichment; in each instance for the Term of this Agreement (the “License”). This License does not confer any commercial rights or license to the User. User is expressly prohibited from monetizing, selling, leasing, renting, trading, licensing, sublicensing, or otherwise commercializing the License or Curriculum addressed under these Terms of Use.
- Ownership of Curriculum. The Curriculum is the sole and exclusive property of Hillsdale and is protected by these Terms of Use, as well as various state, federal and foreign intellectual property rights, including copyright laws and international copyright treaties and trademark laws. User may not download, transmit, copy, store, publish, or distribute the Curriculum in any form or by any means, except as expressly authorized by Hillsdale. By agreeing to these Terms of Use, User acknowledges and agrees that it will not have or obtain any ownership rights in the copyright or physical materials that comprise any of the Curriculum.
- Permitted Uses of Curriculum. These Terms of Use permit you to use the Curriculum in connection with: (1) the instruction of primary and secondary school students; or (2) your personal education and enrichment during the Term of the Agreement. You are not permitted to (i) modify any copies of any of the Curriculum materials; (ii) use any illustrations, photographs, video or audio sequences, or any graphics separately from their accompanying text; or (iii) delete or alter any copyright, trademark, or other proprietary rights notices from copies of Curriculum materials. User agrees not to remove any credit or attribution to Hillsdale College, including attribution to any Hillsdale College authors or other authors of the Curriculum materials. Under no circumstances are you permitted to access or use the Curriculum for any commercial purposes. User hereby acknowledges and agrees that (x) the Curriculum and their contents are confidential and proprietary to Hillsdale, (y) the information contained in the Curriculum is of significant value to Hillsdale, and (z) that unlawfully copying and/or disclosing the Curriculum to others will cause irreparable harm to Hillsdale. If you print, copy, modify, download, or otherwise use or provide any other person with access to any part of the Curriculum in in breach of these Terms of Use, your License to use the Curriculum shall immediately cease and you must destroy any copies of the Curriculum materials that you have made. No right, title or interest in or to the Curriculum is transferred to you and all rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by Hillsdale. Any use of the Curriculum that is not expressly permitted by these Terms of Use is a breach of these Terms of Use and may violate copyright, trademark, and other laws.
- Publicity; Use of Hillsdale College’s Name. User shall use the names, logos, trademarks, or trade names of, and otherwise make reference to the 1776 Curriculum having an affiliation with Hillsdale, in or on any of User’s own websites, social networks, marketing, promotional, publicity, or other materials, including without limitation newsletters, websites, brochures, publications, and communications. The License provided hereunder is limited to the use of the Curriculum as strictly noted in these Terms of Use.
- Linking to the Curriculum. User is permitted to include a hyperlink to or otherwise make the Curriculum materials available to other Persons through User’s own website or social media network. User shall not hyperlink to the Curriculum in any manner, which in any way suggests that User rather than Hillsdale is the source of the Curriculum materials. User may include a hyperlink to the Hillsdale College website to enable others to register with Hillsdale to use the Curriculum, but must do so in a way that does not suggest any form or association, approval or endorsement on Hillsdale’s part without the prior express written consent of Hillsdale College. You agree to cooperate with Hillsdale in causing any unauthorized framing or hyperlinking to immediately stop. Hillsdale reserves the right to withdraw linking permission without notice. For purposes of this Agreement, the term “Persons” means any sole proprietorship, limited liability company, profit or non-profit corporation, academic institution, joint venture, partnership, association, trade group, club, organization of any one or more individuals, or an individual.
- Changes to these Terms of Use. Hillsdale reserves the right to make changes to these Terms of Use from time to time in its sole discretion and under such circumstances, you will be presented with the new Terms of Use to review and agree to. Should you disagree with any term and condition in any revised Terms of Use document or you choose not to agree to the revised Terms of Use, your License shall immediately terminate and you shall cease all use of the Curriculum hereunder. Your use of the Curriculum following your receipt of notice of the revised Terms of Use shall constitute your agreement with any revised terms thereunder.
- Term. These Terms of Use shall commence on the date that User clicks the “I Accept” button agreeing to these Terms of Use and will continue until such time as the License is terminated in accordance with the terms of these Terms of Use (the “Term”).
- Termination. Hillsdale reserves the right to terminate or suspend User’s License to the Curriculum in the event that User fails to comply with any term or condition under these Terms of Use. Under such circumstances, Hillsdale shall provide User with written notice of the breach, to the extent such breach can be cured, which User shall cure within seven (7) calendar days following User’s receipt of Hillsdale’s written notice. Where a breach is incapable of being cured, as determined in Hillsdale’s reasonable discretion, then the License shall terminate upon User’s receipt of Hillsdale’s written notice advising of the incurable breach. For a curable breach, where User fails to cure such breach within seven (7) calendar days, the License shall terminate on the later of (i) seven calendar days following User’s receipt of Hillsdale’s written notice of the breach; or (ii) any longer cure period that was agreed upon by Hillsdale, in Hillsdale’s sole discretion. It is further understood and agreed that upon termination, User shall immediately cease any and all use of the Curriculum and any and all related content created or provided by Hillsdale.
- Injunctive Relief. User acknowledges and agrees that any unauthorized use of the Curriculum or any name, logos, trademarks, or trade names that are owned by Hillsdale, including without limitation, User’s use of the Curriculum after termination or expiration of these Terms of Use, or use outside the scope of the License, will cause damage to Hillsdale that may not be adequately compensated through monetary damages and that in addition to any other remedy, Hillsdale shall be entitled to equitable relief, including temporary, preliminary, and/or permanent injunctive relief, to remedy an actual or threatened unauthorized use of the Curriculum, without proving actual damages or posting a bond or other security. User agrees to the entry of an order for equitable remedies in the event that it violates any intellectual property right of Hillsdale, including relief by way of mandatory or prohibitory injunctions, an accounting, and disgorgements of benefits.
- Freedom of Information Act & Related Actions. This Section 11 only pertains to the extent a User is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), a state open meetings or a state open records act. In the event that any request is made to User under FOIA, a state open meetings act, or an open records act (each, an “Information Request”) as to any Curriculum or confidential or proprietary information related to Hillsdale, the User shall (i) immediately notify Hillsdale of an Information Request to photograph, record or otherwise make copies of any of Curriculum, (ii) provide Hillsdale an opportunity to first decide if any such copies are being requested or prepared as “fair use” of the Curriculum under prevailing copyright laws; (iii) prohibit copying of the Curriculum without either Hillsdale’s consent or entry of an order requiring reproduction; (iv) notify Hillsdale of any suit filed to compel the production of copyrighted materials, including the Curriculum; and, (v) fully cooperate with Hillsdale to protect the confidentiality and proprietary nature of such Curriculum. In the event that Hillsdale decides to resist the Information Request, it agrees to do so at its own expense and indemnify User as to any liability that might flow from User following Hillsdale’s directions in resisting or seeking clarification of the Information Request obligations and the statutory authority thereof. The foregoing provision shall not be construed to encourage or otherwise require Institution to violate any applicable law.
- Disclaimer of Warranties. THE CURRICULUM IS PROVIDED “AS IS” AND “AS AVAILABLE” WITH NO GUARANTEE OR WARRANTY REGARDING COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY OR TIMELINESS. HILLSDALE MAKES NO WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS AS TO ANY COPYRIGHT, TRADEMARK, OR PUBLICITY INFRINGEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE CURRICULUM. HILLSDALE DOES NOT WARRANT THAT ACCESS TO OR USE OF THE CURRICULUM OR ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED THEREIN WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE. HILLSDALE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES OF AVAILABILITY, PERFORMANCE, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR WARRANTY IMPLIED BY STATUTE OR COURSE OF PERFORMANCE, COURSE OF DEALING, OR USAGE OF TRADE.
- Indemnification. User agrees to fully defend, indemnify, and hold Hillsdale, its affiliates, licensors, and service providers, and their respective officers, directors, employees, contractors, agents, licensors, suppliers, successors and assigns from and against any and all claims, causes of action, demands for damages, proceedings, and suits (“Claims”) and pay all liabilities, losses, damages, orders, judgments, settlements, costs, and expenses (including attorneys’ fees and court costs) (“Losses”) arising out of, in relation to, or in connection with (a) User’s violation of these Terms of Use; (b) User’s use of the Curriculum other than expressly authorized in these Terms of Use; and (c) User’s violation of applicable law.
- Limitation of Liability. EXCEPT WITH RESPECT TO HILLSDALE’S INDEMNIFICATION OBLIGATION IN SECTION 11 (AS APPLICABLE), HILLSDALE SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO USER OR ANY OTHER PARTY FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE, OR SPECIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY LOSS OF PROFITS, LOSS OF REVENUE, LOSS OF BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR TYPE OF LOSS, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY OUT OF USER’S USE OF THE CURRICULUM OR ANY BREACH OF THIS AGREEMENT, REGARDLESS OF LEGAL THEORY AND WHETHER THE CLAIM IS BASED IN CONTRACT, BREACH OF WARRANTY, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), STRICT LIABILITY, OR SOME OTHER THEORY OF LIABILITY AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH DAMAGES ARE FORESEEABLE OR HILLSDALE WAS WARNED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL HILLSDALE’S TOTAL AGGREGATE LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF OR IN RELATION TO THIS AGREEMENT EXCEED THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF FEES PAID BY USER TO HILLSDALE FOR THE LICENSE TO THE CURRICULUM.
- Assignment. These Terms of Use shall not be assigned, delegated, or otherwise transferred by User without the prior written consent of Hillsdale. These Terms of Use are entered into solely between and may only be enforced by the parties hereto. These Terms of Use shall not be construed to create any rights in any third party.
- Severability. In the event that any provision contained in these Terms of Use is determined to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable for any reason, such provision shall be eliminated or limited to the minimum extent such that the remaining provision of these Terms of Use will continue in full force and effect.
- Waiver. No waiver by Hillsdale of any term or condition set out in these Terms of Use shall be deemed as a further or continuing waiver of such term or condition or a waiver of any other terms and condition, and any failure of Hillsdale to assert a right or provision under these Terms of Use shall not constitute a waiver of such right or provision.
- Survival. The parties agree that Sections 3, 4, 5, and 8 through 22 shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement.
- Governing Law. These Terms of Use shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Michigan, without regard for any conflict of law provisions or rules that would result in the application of laws other than those for the State of Michigan.
- Jury Trial Waiver. USER HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES TO WAIVE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUARY RIGHT THAT USER MAY HAVE UNDER ANY APPLICABLE LAW TO MAINTAIN A LAWSUIT IN A COURT AND BEFORE A JUDGE AND JURY.
- Class Action Waiver. USER AGREES THAT ANY DISPUTES SHALL BE ASSERTED IN USER’S INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND NOT AS A PLAINTIFF OR CLASS MEMBER IN ANY PURPORTED CLASS, REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDING OR AS AN ASSOCIATION. IN ADDITION, THE PARTIES HERETO EACH AGREE THAT EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN SECTION 10, ANY DISPUTES SHALL BE ARBITRATED ONLY ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS AND NOT IN A CLASS, CONSOLIDATED, OR REPRESENTATIVE ACTION AND THAT AN ARBITRATOR MAY AWARD RELIEF ONLY ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS.
- Arbitration.
- a. Individuals. TO THE EXTENT USER IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND USING THE CURRICULUM FOR PERSONAL USE, PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS SECTION CONTAINS AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE THAT IS APPLICABLE TO YOU AND THAT YOU ARE WAIVING ANY RIGHT THAT YOU MAY HAVE TO HAVE YOUR DISPUTES HEARD IN COURT AND IN FRONT OF A JUDGE.
- EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN SECTION 10, ANY DISPUTE, CLAIM, CONTROVERSY, MATTER OF INTERPRETATION, OR OTHER MATTER (COLLECTIVELY, “DISPUTES”) ARISING OUT OF OR IN RELATION TO THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO BINDING ARBITRATION, CONDUCTED ON A CONFIDENTIAL BASIS AND ADMINISTRATED BY THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION AND BEFORE A SINGLE ARBITRATOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSUMER ARBITRATION RULES (THE “RULES”).
- The arbitration location shall be in Hillsdale, Michigan. Except as otherwise required by applicable law, no party shall disclose the existence, content, or results of any arbitration under this section. The federal rules of evidence shall apply to the arbitration proceedings and be governed by the laws of the State of Michigan. The arbitrator’s decision shall be final, binding and non-appealable and judgment on the decision may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
- b. Academic Institutions. To the extent User is an academic institution or using the Curriculum in any capacity other than for personal use, any controversy, claim, or matter of interpretation arising out of or relating to these Terms of Use, or any breach thereof, shall be settled by confidential arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association in accordance with its Commercial Arbitration Rules, including the Emergency Measures of Protection, and judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. Except as otherwise required by applicable law, no party shall disclose the existence, content, or results of any arbitration under this section. The arbitration shall take place in Hillsdale County, Michigan before one arbitrator. The arbitrator shall award the prevailing party its attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs and fees.
- Limitation on Time to File Claims. ANY CAUSE OF ACTION OR CLAIM YOU MAY HAVE ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THESE TERMS OF USE MUST BE COMMENCED WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR AFTER THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES; OTHERWISE, SUCH CAUSE OF ACTION OR CLAIM IS PERMANENTLY BARRED.
- Entire Agreement. These Terms of Use constitute the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous writings, discussions, and understandings between the parties hereto as to the subject matter of these Terms of Use. The parties acknowledge and agree that neither of them has made any representation with respect to the subject matter of these Terms of Use or inducing its execution and delivery except those specifically set forth herein. The parties acknowledge and agree that they have fully read and understand the provisions of these Terms of Use.
Teaching on the Topic of Marriage - Part I
Is Marriage Just a Sexist Institution? The Modern Revolt Against Marriage Doesn't Lead to Liberation — Quite the Opposite
Marriage is one of God's most precious creations given to humanity, given in creation itself. Marriage is central to any biblical theology pointing to the fact that it appears in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis and then becomes a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and his church at the very consummation of the age.
We also understand that a part of God's intention in giving us marriage is that marriage would become the very foundation of human culture and human civilization. Marriage becomes absolutely essential and Christians have understood it as the union of a man and a woman, essential that is to any civilization, essential to any culture. It's also very, very important, even absolutely fundamental to a Christian understanding and a Christian ethic.
Even those who are not married actually have their orientation to human society and culture through marriage one way or the other even as their own parents, according to the biblical plan, would have been married to each other. We understand that in a sinful world, there are deviancies from that norm, but we also understand that that just makes the gift of marriage as God gave it, as God defined it, all the more important.
Now, one of the ways to understand the modern age is that the rebellion of the age eventually had to arrive at a rebellion against marriage. It took some time because it defies not only law and convention, it defies biology. We'll discuss that just momentarily. But first, we need to recognize that when the modern age sets itself against marriage, it sets itself against civilization. It gets the very possibility of a healthy and productive, flourishing civilization. And this is therefore an injury not only to the civilization writ-large, but to every single member of that civilization.
But as you're looking at the modern rebellion against marriage, understand it didn't start with same-sex marriage, it actually started with a loosening of sexual morality in the 19th century. And then it took the shape of something that was rather unexpected, and that was the development of contraception. That is to say birth control that separated marriage in the marital conjugal act from procreation. Eventually procreation will be severed from sex, sex severed from procreation, and both of them effectively severed from marriage.
We also need to understand that the push for some kind of medically-predictable and dependable contraception or form of birth control was brought about by those who were indeed the prophets and prophetesses of modernity. They demanded the scientific investment in the eventual production of what would be an effort to allow women to be free from any kind of necessity of becoming pregnant and thus having a baby.
And of course was more than that. It was also, as we understand, became very, very central to the population control ideology, the idea that there are just too many human beings. We're going to be looking this week at the fact that that ideology certainly continues even against all evidence. But nonetheless, there was this first major issue, which was the liberalization of sexual morality. And then there came the rejection of that biological constraint by means of birth control.
The next big issue was the redefinition of marriage by making it conditional. The arrival of so-called no fault marriage that basically means people are married for so long as they want to be married. They need not be married any further. It's no longer a permanent institution upon which the entire civilization can depend on the permanency.
The next big shift was actually the shift towards what's called same-sex marriage. Christians understand that there actually, in God's view, according to the very structure of creation, is no such thing as same sex marriage. But we do understand it is a legal and a political reality where you have legislatures, and even more often, courts that have put something called same-sex marriage in place on par with marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
So we have two men being married, we have two women being married, at least according to the law and according to the courts. But what we need to note is that that was followed in such short order by another development and that is the subversion of gender itself. Now, we're talking about headlines that are as current as just say the last several days of USA Today.
Now, here's something else to think about as Christians consider the culture. For most of its relatively brief history, USA Today, published by the Gannett Company, has been something like a news digest.
There are reporters working for the paper, especially in its sports section, its news section, there are culture writers, it does produce material, but the material tends to be very short and intended for a very general audience. It was often criticized as McPaper when it first appeared a generation ago.
But USA Today has actually turned itself into an engine of the moral revolution and the gender revolution. It's hard to imagine a single major media source that is so insistent, virtually daily, on pushing the LGBTQ revolution and the ideologies behind it.
Now, what would be the central obstacle to that revolution? The central obstacle is marriage so that modern rebellion against marriage now reaches a new stage. USA Today recently ran a couple of articles. One of them was by Sara Moniuszko. It was entitled, "Why Marriage Is Still a Sexist Institution, And What We Can Do About It."
Now, reporters are always responsible for the headlines of their stories, but this one actually is reflected in the writing of the story itself. But notice the audacity of it, why marriage is still a sexist institution. In other words, there's a moral verdict against marriage, it's inherently. But then the promise of the fact that we can do something and what we can do about it.
The article begins taking us to the heart of the COVID-19 pandemic, which we are told cast a shadow over weddings. "It shone a light on a major issue with the institution of marriage."
Here's the next paragraph: "While marriage is a joyous milestone in many people's lives, experts say there is no denying the institution has a history of sexism that in many cases can still be felt today. That doesn't mean forward-thinking, young people need to shun marriage, though some are doing just that. The experts agree awareness is an important first step towards progress."
There's so much in just a few words there. First of all, I want to look at the end, the last phrase, "The experts agree awareness is an important first step toward progress." What in the world is an expert in this category? Who are these experts? Well, she does go on and cite some people, but the point is now we are being told sociologically of two new moral authorities.
First of all, the experts on marriage, they're very progressive-thinkers mentioned in this article. And then speaking of progressive "forward-thinking, young people" who we are told must be, of course, forward-thinking and thus must be suspicious of marriage. The article goes on to cite Jocelyn Olcott, the Director of Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies at Duke University.
The article says that she argues that we have made strides in recent years, but as the paper says, "Marriage is sexist. History is still seen in how heterosexual couples divide up household labor and childhood care responsibilities. That became especially evident in the pandemic when many women abandoned their jobs in order to care for and homeschool kids."
Olcott said, and I quote, "COVID really was like a black light on how precarious that progress was because as soon as the crisis hit, that maldistribution reasserted itself." Now let's think as Christians. Let's think biblically as best as we can. Is there a distinction between men and women that is clear in creation, clear in scripture? Absolutely, yes. Is there a difference in the role of men and women in marriage or the husband and the wife? Absolutely, yes. Likewise of the father and the mother, there's a clear distinction.
Can that distinction become distorted by human sin? Of course, it can. It can be exaggerated outside of its biblical context. It can be misused or even abused. But in reality, this is an article that is suggesting that the experts say, "The problem is with the maldistribution itself." But here's where we need to note something. Just think about a newborn baby. That newborn baby requires a very maldistributed set of responsibilities or simply things a mother can do, must do, will do that a father can't do and won't do.
Now, again, sin can enter in and all this can be distorted, but the fact is that God has created us in such a way that biology makes very clear there is in some sense, a maldistribution. Now, the feminist came along in, especially the 20th century, and argued that the idea that women would have their primary attention in the domestic sphere and men in the external sphere, historians, especially writing from the left, have argued that that was a new thing.
Well, it did take a new form because when you had the industrial revolution, you had men beginning to work in such work context as factories. You couldn't have men working in factories until you had the rise of factories. And yes, there was something like the rise of a cult of domesticity even when it came to the presentation of wives and mothers in the home. Even when you look at television advertisements, especially the 1950s, '60s, and even into the '70s, yes, you had a lot of stereotypes just look at the television programs.
But here's the thing, those stereotypes weren't just stereotypes. They actually were at least a representation of what was considered normal life. And that's what really didn't change from, say, the 18th to the 19th, to the 20th century. There has always been, throughout human history, what USA Today criticizes as a maldistribution of responsibilities when it comes to domestic responsibilities between men and women, between husbands and wives.
And the fact is that nature itself has made that rather mandatory. Now, I've made clear as often as I can that sin can distort that, but the reality is still there. And you'll notice this article basically argues against that reality, not just basically, straightforwardly. We're told, "Marriage before the 1970s was legally constructed as a sexist institution." That's according to Juliet A. Williams, professor at UCLA in the Department of Gender Studies.
Now, this is accurate in many ways, this part of the article that says there's been a revolution in marital law when it comes to, say, the legal recognition of women as economic and political agents, not only able to vote, but also able to own property, there's been a massive change there. But it is still the case as this professor that on average women who are married are financially better off than unmarried women.
Now, the thing is that's presented as if it is evidence of a problem. This is what Christians understand. That's actually evidence of the fact that when creation and God's word are honored, we actually have human flourishing. We have economic success. We have indeed greater financial security. What this newspaper sees as lingering sexism is actually not just a hint. It's just prima facie evidence of the fact that marriage was intended to work just this way.
The article gets very straightforward when the same professor is quoted as saying that we "live in a society where women are still incentivized to tie their fortunes to men, as opposed to being independent from them." Now, I guess that's what they teach in the Department of Gender Studies at UCLA. No real surprise there. But you'll notice however, that women aren't buying the hypothesis. The fact is that, yes, you not only have a society that incentivizes marriage with a man and a woman coming together in marriage, but there is a natural understanding, just looking at the evidence, that those who are married fare better financially than those who do not.
The argument here is that the society should somehow seek to undo the incentive for not only women, but for men to get married.
The article then cites a lecture on women's studies, gender and sexuality at Harvard University, who says that there are "a number of ways we're told in which sexism is present in the institution of marriage today for heterosexual couples, including 'The assumption and societal pressure that women and any subsequent children have the surname of the husband.'"
Is that just a representation of patriarchy? Well, certainly it hearkens back to a patriarchal age, but the fact is, it also leads to cultural and civilizational sanity so that people know who a family is. And when you're looking at the reality of a patrilineal family, you're looking at the fact that most people are going to continue to think that way and not just for historical reasons.
One of the chief responsibilities of any civilization is to create a context in which men have to take financial and other responsibility for their own offspring. One of the ways in society and in human history where that has been done is by making certain that fathers give their surname to their children in order to make clear he is responsible for them.
USA Today is looking for a big revolution. Juliet Williams of UCLA quoted in the article already is quoted again as saying, "I think it's interesting how many younger people are just opting out of marriage and don't see it as relevant to their happiness." Instead, we're told she suggests that there are changes that need to be made on both a societal and individual level. "The goal is more thoughtfulness around the consequences of giving weddings and marriage a pass as we try to untangle all the knots that continue to constrain women and men and their full flourishing, and that maintain the overall inequality of women compared to men."
Now, when it comes to that maldistribution within the household, the article says, "Williams recognizes that it's difficult to push back against division of labor in the household, but says it can be helpful to start by recognizing how much stigma there is against women who don't love taking care of the kids, for example."
Now, let's just back off for a moment. Let's just assume that we're having a conversation in which at least some mother says she really doesn't like taking care of her children. I just ask you to find the civilization in which there's not going to be a negative response to that. But there's progress on this front because I can imagine very few circumstances in which a man, a husband, a father can say he finds no joy in taking care of his children. I can see very little chance that in our day, especially amongst Christians, there's not going to be a very negative judgment made against that man for making that statement of irresponsibility.
Interestingly, Professor William says, "We don't want to deny that there's agency at play and people's replicating traditional division of labor in the household. But I also think we want to be honest that our desires are conditioned by the incredibly fierce judgment and condemnation that even in 2021 bears down on anybody who's, in any way, gender-nonconforming."
Well, there's gender non-conforming, but notice something else. She basically says that she doesn't want to deny, "There's agency at play." What does that mean? It means she actually can't deny with intellectual honesty the fact that an incredible number of women actually want marriage. the way traditional marriage is defined. We're told that the wedding ceremony is being redefined by some who are skipping white dresses, which Professor Williams says, "historically were meant to symbolize virginity." That's a quote, and yes, that whiteness was indeed to symbolize virginity. And it's very morally-telling that even many brides who certainly can make no claim to virginity still want to wear a white dress so at least when they dress up for their wedding, they act as if it were so.
Is Marriage Just a Sexist Institution? The Modern Revolt Against Marriage Doesn't Lead to Liberation — Quite the Opposite
Marriage is one of God's most precious creations given to humanity, given in creation itself. Marriage is central to any biblical theology pointing to the fact that it appears in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis and then becomes a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and his church at the very consummation of the age.
We also understand that a part of God's intention in giving us marriage is that marriage would become the very foundation of human culture and human civilization. Marriage becomes absolutely essential and Christians have understood it as the union of a man and a woman, essential that is to any civilization, essential to any culture. It's also very, very important, even absolutely fundamental to a Christian understanding and a Christian ethic.
Even those who are not married actually have their orientation to human society and culture through marriage one way or the other even as their own parents, according to the biblical plan, would have been married to each other. We understand that in a sinful world, there are deviancies from that norm, but we also understand that that just makes the gift of marriage as God gave it, as God defined it, all the more important.
Now, one of the ways to understand the modern age is that the rebellion of the age eventually had to arrive at a rebellion against marriage. It took some time because it defies not only law and convention, it defies biology. We'll discuss that just momentarily. But first, we need to recognize that when the modern age sets itself against marriage, it sets itself against civilization. It gets the very possibility of a healthy and productive, flourishing civilization. And this is therefore an injury not only to the civilization writ-large, but to every single member of that civilization.
But as you're looking at the modern rebellion against marriage, understand it didn't start with same-sex marriage, it actually started with a loosening of sexual morality in the 19th century. And then it took the shape of something that was rather unexpected, and that was the development of contraception. That is to say birth control that separated marriage in the marital conjugal act from procreation. Eventually procreation will be severed from sex, sex severed from procreation, and both of them effectively severed from marriage.
We also need to understand that the push for some kind of medically-predictable and dependable contraception or form of birth control was brought about by those who were indeed the prophets and prophetesses of modernity. They demanded the scientific investment in the eventual production of what would be an effort to allow women to be free from any kind of necessity of becoming pregnant and thus having a baby.
And of course was more than that. It was also, as we understand, became very, very central to the population control ideology, the idea that there are just too many human beings. We're going to be looking this week at the fact that that ideology certainly continues even against all evidence. But nonetheless, there was this first major issue, which was the liberalization of sexual morality. And then there came the rejection of that biological constraint by means of birth control.
The next big issue was the redefinition of marriage by making it conditional. The arrival of so-called no fault marriage that basically means people are married for so long as they want to be married. They need not be married any further. It's no longer a permanent institution upon which the entire civilization can depend on the permanency.
The next big shift was actually the shift towards what's called same-sex marriage. Christians understand that there actually, in God's view, according to the very structure of creation, is no such thing as same sex marriage. But we do understand it is a legal and a political reality where you have legislatures, and even more often, courts that have put something called same-sex marriage in place on par with marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
So we have two men being married, we have two women being married, at least according to the law and according to the courts. But what we need to note is that that was followed in such short order by another development and that is the subversion of gender itself. Now, we're talking about headlines that are as current as just say the last several days of USA Today.
Now, here's something else to think about as Christians consider the culture. For most of its relatively brief history, USA Today, published by the Gannett Company, has been something like a news digest.
There are reporters working for the paper, especially in its sports section, its news section, there are culture writers, it does produce material, but the material tends to be very short and intended for a very general audience. It was often criticized as McPaper when it first appeared a generation ago.
But USA Today has actually turned itself into an engine of the moral revolution and the gender revolution. It's hard to imagine a single major media source that is so insistent, virtually daily, on pushing the LGBTQ revolution and the ideologies behind it.
Now, what would be the central obstacle to that revolution? The central obstacle is marriage so that modern rebellion against marriage now reaches a new stage. USA Today recently ran a couple of articles. One of them was by Sara Moniuszko. It was entitled, "Why Marriage Is Still a Sexist Institution, And What We Can Do About It."
Now, reporters are always responsible for the headlines of their stories, but this one actually is reflected in the writing of the story itself. But notice the audacity of it, why marriage is still a sexist institution. In other words, there's a moral verdict against marriage, it's inherently. But then the promise of the fact that we can do something and what we can do about it.
The article begins taking us to the heart of the COVID-19 pandemic, which we are told cast a shadow over weddings. "It shone a light on a major issue with the institution of marriage."
Here's the next paragraph: "While marriage is a joyous milestone in many people's lives, experts say there is no denying the institution has a history of sexism that in many cases can still be felt today. That doesn't mean forward-thinking, young people need to shun marriage, though some are doing just that. The experts agree awareness is an important first step towards progress."
There's so much in just a few words there. First of all, I want to look at the end, the last phrase, "The experts agree awareness is an important first step toward progress." What in the world is an expert in this category? Who are these experts? Well, she does go on and cite some people, but the point is now we are being told sociologically of two new moral authorities.
First of all, the experts on marriage, they're very progressive-thinkers mentioned in this article. And then speaking of progressive "forward-thinking, young people" who we are told must be, of course, forward-thinking and thus must be suspicious of marriage. The article goes on to cite Jocelyn Olcott, the Director of Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies at Duke University.
The article says that she argues that we have made strides in recent years, but as the paper says, "Marriage is sexist. History is still seen in how heterosexual couples divide up household labor and childhood care responsibilities. That became especially evident in the pandemic when many women abandoned their jobs in order to care for and homeschool kids."
Olcott said, and I quote, "COVID really was like a black light on how precarious that progress was because as soon as the crisis hit, that maldistribution reasserted itself." Now let's think as Christians. Let's think biblically as best as we can. Is there a distinction between men and women that is clear in creation, clear in scripture? Absolutely, yes. Is there a difference in the role of men and women in marriage or the husband and the wife? Absolutely, yes. Likewise of the father and the mother, there's a clear distinction.
Can that distinction become distorted by human sin? Of course, it can. It can be exaggerated outside of its biblical context. It can be misused or even abused. But in reality, this is an article that is suggesting that the experts say, "The problem is with the maldistribution itself." But here's where we need to note something. Just think about a newborn baby. That newborn baby requires a very maldistributed set of responsibilities or simply things a mother can do, must do, will do that a father can't do and won't do.
Now, again, sin can enter in and all this can be distorted, but the fact is that God has created us in such a way that biology makes very clear there is in some sense, a maldistribution. Now, the feminist came along in, especially the 20th century, and argued that the idea that women would have their primary attention in the domestic sphere and men in the external sphere, historians, especially writing from the left, have argued that that was a new thing.
Well, it did take a new form because when you had the industrial revolution, you had men beginning to work in such work context as factories. You couldn't have men working in factories until you had the rise of factories. And yes, there was something like the rise of a cult of domesticity even when it came to the presentation of wives and mothers in the home. Even when you look at television advertisements, especially the 1950s, '60s, and even into the '70s, yes, you had a lot of stereotypes just look at the television programs.
But here's the thing, those stereotypes weren't just stereotypes. They actually were at least a representation of what was considered normal life. And that's what really didn't change from, say, the 18th to the 19th, to the 20th century. There has always been, throughout human history, what USA Today criticizes as a maldistribution of responsibilities when it comes to domestic responsibilities between men and women, between husbands and wives.
And the fact is that nature itself has made that rather mandatory. Now, I've made clear as often as I can that sin can distort that, but the reality is still there. And you'll notice this article basically argues against that reality, not just basically, straightforwardly. We're told, "Marriage before the 1970s was legally constructed as a sexist institution." That's according to Juliet A. Williams, professor at UCLA in the Department of Gender Studies.
Now, this is accurate in many ways, this part of the article that says there's been a revolution in marital law when it comes to, say, the legal recognition of women as economic and political agents, not only able to vote, but also able to own property, there's been a massive change there. But it is still the case as this professor that on average women who are married are financially better off than unmarried women.
Now, the thing is that's presented as if it is evidence of a problem. This is what Christians understand. That's actually evidence of the fact that when creation and God's word are honored, we actually have human flourishing. We have economic success. We have indeed greater financial security. What this newspaper sees as lingering sexism is actually not just a hint. It's just prima facie evidence of the fact that marriage was intended to work just this way.
The article gets very straightforward when the same professor is quoted as saying that we "live in a society where women are still incentivized to tie their fortunes to men, as opposed to being independent from them." Now, I guess that's what they teach in the Department of Gender Studies at UCLA. No real surprise there. But you'll notice however, that women aren't buying the hypothesis. The fact is that, yes, you not only have a society that incentivizes marriage with a man and a woman coming together in marriage, but there is a natural understanding, just looking at the evidence, that those who are married fare better financially than those who do not.
The argument here is that the society should somehow seek to undo the incentive for not only women, but for men to get married.
The article then cites a lecture on women's studies, gender and sexuality at Harvard University, who says that there are "a number of ways we're told in which sexism is present in the institution of marriage today for heterosexual couples, including 'The assumption and societal pressure that women and any subsequent children have the surname of the husband.'"
Is that just a representation of patriarchy? Well, certainly it hearkens back to a patriarchal age, but the fact is, it also leads to cultural and civilizational sanity so that people know who a family is. And when you're looking at the reality of a patrilineal family, you're looking at the fact that most people are going to continue to think that way and not just for historical reasons.
One of the chief responsibilities of any civilization is to create a context in which men have to take financial and other responsibility for their own offspring. One of the ways in society and in human history where that has been done is by making certain that fathers give their surname to their children in order to make clear he is responsible for them.
USA Today is looking for a big revolution. Juliet Williams of UCLA quoted in the article already is quoted again as saying, "I think it's interesting how many younger people are just opting out of marriage and don't see it as relevant to their happiness." Instead, we're told she suggests that there are changes that need to be made on both a societal and individual level. "The goal is more thoughtfulness around the consequences of giving weddings and marriage a pass as we try to untangle all the knots that continue to constrain women and men and their full flourishing, and that maintain the overall inequality of women compared to men."
Now, when it comes to that maldistribution within the household, the article says, "Williams recognizes that it's difficult to push back against division of labor in the household, but says it can be helpful to start by recognizing how much stigma there is against women who don't love taking care of the kids, for example."
Now, let's just back off for a moment. Let's just assume that we're having a conversation in which at least some mother says she really doesn't like taking care of her children. I just ask you to find the civilization in which there's not going to be a negative response to that. But there's progress on this front because I can imagine very few circumstances in which a man, a husband, a father can say he finds no joy in taking care of his children. I can see very little chance that in our day, especially amongst Christians, there's not going to be a very negative judgment made against that man for making that statement of irresponsibility.
Interestingly, Professor William says, "We don't want to deny that there's agency at play and people's replicating traditional division of labor in the household. But I also think we want to be honest that our desires are conditioned by the incredibly fierce judgment and condemnation that even in 2021 bears down on anybody who's, in any way, gender-nonconforming."
Well, there's gender non-conforming, but notice something else. She basically says that she doesn't want to deny, "There's agency at play." What does that mean? It means she actually can't deny with intellectual honesty the fact that an incredible number of women actually want marriage. the way traditional marriage is defined. We're told that the wedding ceremony is being redefined by some who are skipping white dresses, which Professor Williams says, "historically were meant to symbolize virginity." That's a quote, and yes, that whiteness was indeed to symbolize virginity. And it's very morally-telling that even many brides who certainly can make no claim to virginity still want to wear a white dress so at least when they dress up for their wedding, they act as if it were so.
Teaching on the Topic of Marriage - Part II
View attachment 265501
The Modern Age Pushes to 'De-Gender' Weddings? Civilization's Survival Depends On God's Creation of 'Male' and 'Female' — And Our Respect for God's Plan
But just a few days after that article in USA Today appeared, another by Charles Trépanier appeared with the headline "Weddings without gender? More couples want to de-gender how they tie the knot."
This article is explicitly about gender nonconformity when it comes to the transformation of wedding ceremonies. But let me say from the onset, even as you read this article, you recognize we're talking about a tiny percentage of the weddings that are being done. The kinds of things that are described here, you are not likely to see in a wedding, but you are likely to see them prominently displayed in USA Today as a trend.
The article tells us, and this is supposed to be a blockbuster, that many of the most cherished and traditional wedding practices have revolved around gender. Who would have known that? Actually, everybody would have known that. That's about as obvious as saying that the ocean is full of water. It's nonsense to act as if that's some kind of sophisticated cultural criticism.
Yes, marriage is about gender. Look at the marriage ceremony. Look at the picture of marriage in the scripture. Look at just about every single marriage you can find throughout human history documented in normal human life and every civilization on planet earth for thousands of years. But then the USA Today article tells us, "From who's allowed to be a bridesmaid or a groomsman and what you call them, to who gets walked down the aisle, more traditions are getting modern twists as couples seek to be more inclusive of the LGBTQ+ community and consistent with a feminist view of gender.
The article then cites Amy Shack Egan identified as a wedding planner in Brooklyn who said, "There are a lot of rules and etiquette around weddings and a lot of them are, frankly, sexist and outdated and they need to be rethought." I've seen couples get so creative and make choices that really feel right for themselves and their partnership so that a wedding can actually feel empowering."
Because after all, I presume, that's the way USA Today thinks a wedding should feel. Empowering. What would empowered look like? Well, the article cites one young woman who's identified herself as a wedding photographer in San Diego. She, we are told, got married in 2019, but a white dress, "Did not feel like it honored my personality." So we're told, instead, she opted for a blue gown with vibrant floral patterns. We're also told she declined to take her husband's last name with the aim of, "Not giving into the system of patriarchy."
Well, that's evidently what empowerment looks like. Now, remember, USA Today is telling us about the sexist traditions of weddings that need to be done away with one of them would be a father walking his daughter down the aisle as if it's one man giving a woman to another man. There's an entire biblical story behind that, biblical picture and biblical theology, by the way. But USA Today is making the point that that's inherently sexist, thus we should presumably do away with it.
But the only woman who's cited in the article about this practice actually asked her father to give her away. And furthermore, we're told that one poll indicated that the vast majority of women wanted to keep the same. Well, if the article began with that, it wouldn't be much of a news story, would it?
We're told that there are some couples who are deciding that they really don't have bridesmaids and groomsmen, they just have friends that are not necessarily assorted by gender at all. The article then tells us, "Despite de-gendered trends becoming more popular among couples, the $51 billion wedding services industry is still playing catch up when it comes to inclusion."
The article then cites a business woman whose company, "Fierce Productions, specializes in non-traditional celebrations. Well, she has to hope that this is a business trend. Doesn't she? The article also does acknowledge, and this is important, that the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2015 has also "cast gender traditions in a new light."
Now, even this article makes clear it has done so mostly amongst those who are same-sex couples. Common grace, and remember for Christians that means the very structures of God's grace given to us in creation in the natural order, that kind of creation general common gray shines through when we are told that for same-sex couples seeking to be married, "These traditions can be especially tricky for same-sex couples."
Well, of course they can because the very notion of marriage, even when you think about a wedding cake, and Time magazine and many others have tried to offer pictures of wedding cakes with two grooms or two brides, but the fact is that's still shocking. It's because it's shocking in light of creation, not just tradition.
One issue that does become very clear in this article is that young couples who want to be seen as, well, the other article said progressive and forward thinking, they need to think about what kind of signals they're sending if they want to be sending what are described here as a very progressive signals even if they are "not queer or gender queer." A lot of social pressure there.
But one of the most interesting aspects of this article is the heading weddings are for couples, not society. The article says, "Perhaps most important, the trend away from gender traditions means people are thinking more deeply about weddings and what the ceremony means to them." That's in order to say it's about them not about society.
Well, here's where we need to recognize something. In the history of marriage, in the history of weddings, we should say, throughout society, it is profoundly about society. It is a social, legally-sanctioned relationship. It is a public announcement. It's a legal filing. And yes, the public nature of the wedding, even with required witnesses throughout Western history is a way of saying, this is essential to our civilization and we are setting it apart. We're even creating a ceremony. We are honoring it. We are witnesses to it.
The article cites another authority as saying that the big challenge is reconciling tradition with progress. Well, that's one way to put it. And there's something to that challenge, reconciling tradition with progress. But we also need to note something that's not in the article. And that is that the greater challenge is rejecting a creation order. That's a far greater challenge.
The challenge as depicted in this article comes down to this concluding statement, "In every aspect of life, there's that balance between how things have been done in the past and evolving and making new traditions. A lot of the traditions are sexist and are geared towards your male-female couple. And I don't think it needs to be like that. I think people are recognizing that it's okay to go away from that." I think your experience, as well as my experience, even the experience of looking around our society everywhere but where the mainstream media, and for that matter, the moral progressives are trying to paint a different picture.
The reality is, for reasons of common grace rooted in creation, the society is never going to get that far from that male-female picture of marriage because it can't. And let's just point out the obvious. The biological continuation of the human species depends on it.
View attachment 265501
The Modern Age Pushes to 'De-Gender' Weddings? Civilization's Survival Depends On God's Creation of 'Male' and 'Female' — And Our Respect for God's Plan
But just a few days after that article in USA Today appeared, another by Charles Trépanier appeared with the headline "Weddings without gender? More couples want to de-gender how they tie the knot."
This article is explicitly about gender nonconformity when it comes to the transformation of wedding ceremonies. But let me say from the onset, even as you read this article, you recognize we're talking about a tiny percentage of the weddings that are being done. The kinds of things that are described here, you are not likely to see in a wedding, but you are likely to see them prominently displayed in USA Today as a trend.
The article tells us, and this is supposed to be a blockbuster, that many of the most cherished and traditional wedding practices have revolved around gender. Who would have known that? Actually, everybody would have known that. That's about as obvious as saying that the ocean is full of water. It's nonsense to act as if that's some kind of sophisticated cultural criticism.
Yes, marriage is about gender. Look at the marriage ceremony. Look at the picture of marriage in the scripture. Look at just about every single marriage you can find throughout human history documented in normal human life and every civilization on planet earth for thousands of years. But then the USA Today article tells us, "From who's allowed to be a bridesmaid or a groomsman and what you call them, to who gets walked down the aisle, more traditions are getting modern twists as couples seek to be more inclusive of the LGBTQ+ community and consistent with a feminist view of gender.
The article then cites Amy Shack Egan identified as a wedding planner in Brooklyn who said, "There are a lot of rules and etiquette around weddings and a lot of them are, frankly, sexist and outdated and they need to be rethought." I've seen couples get so creative and make choices that really feel right for themselves and their partnership so that a wedding can actually feel empowering."
Because after all, I presume, that's the way USA Today thinks a wedding should feel. Empowering. What would empowered look like? Well, the article cites one young woman who's identified herself as a wedding photographer in San Diego. She, we are told, got married in 2019, but a white dress, "Did not feel like it honored my personality." So we're told, instead, she opted for a blue gown with vibrant floral patterns. We're also told she declined to take her husband's last name with the aim of, "Not giving into the system of patriarchy."
Well, that's evidently what empowerment looks like. Now, remember, USA Today is telling us about the sexist traditions of weddings that need to be done away with one of them would be a father walking his daughter down the aisle as if it's one man giving a woman to another man. There's an entire biblical story behind that, biblical picture and biblical theology, by the way. But USA Today is making the point that that's inherently sexist, thus we should presumably do away with it.
But the only woman who's cited in the article about this practice actually asked her father to give her away. And furthermore, we're told that one poll indicated that the vast majority of women wanted to keep the same. Well, if the article began with that, it wouldn't be much of a news story, would it?
We're told that there are some couples who are deciding that they really don't have bridesmaids and groomsmen, they just have friends that are not necessarily assorted by gender at all. The article then tells us, "Despite de-gendered trends becoming more popular among couples, the $51 billion wedding services industry is still playing catch up when it comes to inclusion."
The article then cites a business woman whose company, "Fierce Productions, specializes in non-traditional celebrations. Well, she has to hope that this is a business trend. Doesn't she? The article also does acknowledge, and this is important, that the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2015 has also "cast gender traditions in a new light."
Now, even this article makes clear it has done so mostly amongst those who are same-sex couples. Common grace, and remember for Christians that means the very structures of God's grace given to us in creation in the natural order, that kind of creation general common gray shines through when we are told that for same-sex couples seeking to be married, "These traditions can be especially tricky for same-sex couples."
Well, of course they can because the very notion of marriage, even when you think about a wedding cake, and Time magazine and many others have tried to offer pictures of wedding cakes with two grooms or two brides, but the fact is that's still shocking. It's because it's shocking in light of creation, not just tradition.
One issue that does become very clear in this article is that young couples who want to be seen as, well, the other article said progressive and forward thinking, they need to think about what kind of signals they're sending if they want to be sending what are described here as a very progressive signals even if they are "not queer or gender queer." A lot of social pressure there.
But one of the most interesting aspects of this article is the heading weddings are for couples, not society. The article says, "Perhaps most important, the trend away from gender traditions means people are thinking more deeply about weddings and what the ceremony means to them." That's in order to say it's about them not about society.
Well, here's where we need to recognize something. In the history of marriage, in the history of weddings, we should say, throughout society, it is profoundly about society. It is a social, legally-sanctioned relationship. It is a public announcement. It's a legal filing. And yes, the public nature of the wedding, even with required witnesses throughout Western history is a way of saying, this is essential to our civilization and we are setting it apart. We're even creating a ceremony. We are honoring it. We are witnesses to it.
The article cites another authority as saying that the big challenge is reconciling tradition with progress. Well, that's one way to put it. And there's something to that challenge, reconciling tradition with progress. But we also need to note something that's not in the article. And that is that the greater challenge is rejecting a creation order. That's a far greater challenge.
The challenge as depicted in this article comes down to this concluding statement, "In every aspect of life, there's that balance between how things have been done in the past and evolving and making new traditions. A lot of the traditions are sexist and are geared towards your male-female couple. And I don't think it needs to be like that. I think people are recognizing that it's okay to go away from that." I think your experience, as well as my experience, even the experience of looking around our society everywhere but where the mainstream media, and for that matter, the moral progressives are trying to paint a different picture.
The reality is, for reasons of common grace rooted in creation, the society is never going to get that far from that male-female picture of marriage because it can't. And let's just point out the obvious. The biological continuation of the human species depends on it.
Definitelly interesting looks like interesting idea. But i think need to research a litlle better for example for your website
Looks like something interesting. And by the way i was found siimilar conception which you describe on essaywritinghelp.pro. I think you have all chances to upgrading this idea.
In What Way Does the Bible Endorse the Idea of Subsidiarity?
R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
September 3, 2021
But now we turn to The Mailbox, I want to go to a question posed by Michael about subsidiarity. He said, "My question is in regards to subsidiarity is a Christian principle, where in Scripture does the idea of subsidiarity most clearly come from?" Great question. And the answer takes us right to the opening chapters of scripture. It is in Genesis 1, Genesis 2, and then frankly, and everything that follows. But in particular, in Genesis 1 and in Genesis 2. Also, reflected, for example, in the 10 commandments where you see that principle of subsidiarity that tells us that the most basic unit of human organization is the most competent to deal with needs. That means that the further you get from those more basic units, the more abstract everything becomes and the more diffuse.
Now that sounds diffused, just consider this, you do not want your children to be raised by the United Nations, you want your children to be raised by parents. And by that we mean a mother and a father who are married to each other. Now why the doctrine of creation? Why Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? It is because subsidiarity follows the very logic of God’s creation order that is revealed in that book of Genesis. And it tells us that the most basic unit of human society is the man and the woman coming together in marriage to form a family and then to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the earth.
As you follow the sequence of the biblical revelation from that point onward, you see that there is authority, the greatest reality, the greatest trust, the greatest authority resides in the most basic unit. And that begins where God began in creating human society as we see in the opening of Scripture itself in Genesis.
Now you can also say it appears everywhere there's a reference to marriage and the family always upheld, whether it's Jesus saying that it was God's plan in the beginning that a man and a woman should be married for a lifetime time, whether it's Paul speaking of the household codes in his letters where he very clearly refers to the family and recognizes the family's responsibility for the nurturing of children, the raising of children. And furthermore, you can even see it as you go to the book of Revelation. But we don't have time to do a complete biblical theology, but that's a project that should be done on subsidiarity.
R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
September 3, 2021
But now we turn to The Mailbox, I want to go to a question posed by Michael about subsidiarity. He said, "My question is in regards to subsidiarity is a Christian principle, where in Scripture does the idea of subsidiarity most clearly come from?" Great question. And the answer takes us right to the opening chapters of scripture. It is in Genesis 1, Genesis 2, and then frankly, and everything that follows. But in particular, in Genesis 1 and in Genesis 2. Also, reflected, for example, in the 10 commandments where you see that principle of subsidiarity that tells us that the most basic unit of human organization is the most competent to deal with needs. That means that the further you get from those more basic units, the more abstract everything becomes and the more diffuse.
Now that sounds diffused, just consider this, you do not want your children to be raised by the United Nations, you want your children to be raised by parents. And by that we mean a mother and a father who are married to each other. Now why the doctrine of creation? Why Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? It is because subsidiarity follows the very logic of God’s creation order that is revealed in that book of Genesis. And it tells us that the most basic unit of human society is the man and the woman coming together in marriage to form a family and then to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the earth.
As you follow the sequence of the biblical revelation from that point onward, you see that there is authority, the greatest reality, the greatest trust, the greatest authority resides in the most basic unit. And that begins where God began in creating human society as we see in the opening of Scripture itself in Genesis.
Now you can also say it appears everywhere there's a reference to marriage and the family always upheld, whether it's Jesus saying that it was God's plan in the beginning that a man and a woman should be married for a lifetime time, whether it's Paul speaking of the household codes in his letters where he very clearly refers to the family and recognizes the family's responsibility for the nurturing of children, the raising of children. And furthermore, you can even see it as you go to the book of Revelation. But we don't have time to do a complete biblical theology, but that's a project that should be done on subsidiarity.
An Appropriate View of Art in Society
R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
September 3, 2021
Second, a good question from Cade, and he's responding to references about art and culture and the power of pop culture. And he's asking about the role of the artist in the Christian worldview and whether or not Christian should both appreciate art and produce art. He speaks of his own calling as an artist, and then ask, "Do you think Christian institutions should be taking the art far more seriously?" Well, there's a sense in which I want to say yes to that. And for instance, if you go into my personal library or you come on the campus of Southern Seminary, you're going to see an appreciation for art.
But you know, Cade, for biblically minded Christians, there's always a tension here. For one thing where you see the church give itself most generously to the arts, you often see the most general alienation from biblical theology. Now that's not a universal rule, but just consider the artworks of the Vatican, which were a scandal, even the Catholics at the time, not to mention to the reformers of the 16th century.
Cade, you're absolutely right, we should use all the gifts God has given us for His glory, but we also have to understand that the delight of the eye, or for that matter, the delight of the ears and music, though we love those things in their place, there's always the danger that they become something else. Cade, the other thing I thought of when I read your very thoughtful message was the fact that there are entry and exit doors. And frankly, when it comes to the art world, we don't control many of those doors. Those entry doors are largely controlled by those who hold a very different worldview. But you're certainly right that we should use all the gifts God gives us to a godly and God glorifying end. And that means art and music in their place.
R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
September 3, 2021
Second, a good question from Cade, and he's responding to references about art and culture and the power of pop culture. And he's asking about the role of the artist in the Christian worldview and whether or not Christian should both appreciate art and produce art. He speaks of his own calling as an artist, and then ask, "Do you think Christian institutions should be taking the art far more seriously?" Well, there's a sense in which I want to say yes to that. And for instance, if you go into my personal library or you come on the campus of Southern Seminary, you're going to see an appreciation for art.
But you know, Cade, for biblically minded Christians, there's always a tension here. For one thing where you see the church give itself most generously to the arts, you often see the most general alienation from biblical theology. Now that's not a universal rule, but just consider the artworks of the Vatican, which were a scandal, even the Catholics at the time, not to mention to the reformers of the 16th century.
Cade, you're absolutely right, we should use all the gifts God has given us for His glory, but we also have to understand that the delight of the eye, or for that matter, the delight of the ears and music, though we love those things in their place, there's always the danger that they become something else. Cade, the other thing I thought of when I read your very thoughtful message was the fact that there are entry and exit doors. And frankly, when it comes to the art world, we don't control many of those doors. Those entry doors are largely controlled by those who hold a very different worldview. But you're certainly right that we should use all the gifts God gives us to a godly and God glorifying end. And that means art and music in their place.