I found out today that a former colleague has divorced and remarried.
It's none of my business to know why, but one is curious, nosey. The new wife is another colleague. Did he split with his first wife just so that he could have her?
So I guiltily ask someone what happened.
It turns out that it was his first wife that had been seeing someone else - the butch female security guard (who was supposed to have been 'doing it' with the female CEO for some time). So my colleague had been patiently and silently suffering for many years. I still don't know the order f events, but knowing a bit more of the circumstances I am less inclined to jump to conclusions than I was to start with.
Gossip is bad, but in this instance stopped me from misjudging someone.
(Plus it's another case of a homosexual trying to get along in a heterosexual marriage and surprise surprise, it doesn't work)
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 10
Wednesday, March 19
Remarriage after Divorce reconsidered
A colleague – one of our Alpha Course success stories from last year - is being chucked out by his wife. They are currently negotiating about custody and dividing the house. There has been no formal application for divorce, but it looks like this will be the outcome. Obviously I only get one side of the story, but he clearly feels that he has been used by a woman who now wants to just cast him off like old clothes. My colleague is certainly not the initiator of the split.
So he asked my views on remarriage……should someone turn up in the distant future.
It’s easy to be conservative when arguing theology on a blog, but it’s much harder when face to face with a man who has lost his marriage against his will in this way.
I gave him the range of theological opinion on the topic starting with a liberal interpretation of the verse he quote to me, and said that I was drifting towards being more conservative and don’t believe in serial monogamy. So I think I have been fair and truthful without breaking the cardinal rule of counselling – ‘don’t give advice’.
But it made me question again if my present position is right. And if I am wrong on this what else am I wrong about?
And was I an encouragement to him? Or did he leave with a heavier heart? He is certainly reconsidering how quickly and willingly he should travel along the ‘divorce’ conveyor belt.
So he asked my views on remarriage……should someone turn up in the distant future.
It’s easy to be conservative when arguing theology on a blog, but it’s much harder when face to face with a man who has lost his marriage against his will in this way.
I gave him the range of theological opinion on the topic starting with a liberal interpretation of the verse he quote to me, and said that I was drifting towards being more conservative and don’t believe in serial monogamy. So I think I have been fair and truthful without breaking the cardinal rule of counselling – ‘don’t give advice’.
But it made me question again if my present position is right. And if I am wrong on this what else am I wrong about?
And was I an encouragement to him? Or did he leave with a heavier heart? He is certainly reconsidering how quickly and willingly he should travel along the ‘divorce’ conveyor belt.
Monday, March 3
My son's baptism, and stuff.
On this weekend:
- My youngest son (age 8) was baptised as a believer by immersion in an Anglican church. In accordance with our prayers, he was not the centre of attention, since he was baptised on the same occasion as a notable adult – see below. Even so, many people commented to us afterwards that the ‘Joy of the Lord’ was evident in him during the service. We always worry that as parents we push rather than lead, but I am now satisfied we got the balance right.
- A Zulu, shy and with poor English, married a Czech woman, shy and with poor English. [How did they meet?]
- The new ‘Mrs Zulu’ – a new convert - was baptised, alongside my son.
- The new ‘Mr and Mrs Zulu’ dedicated their 3 month old son. (Now Q1 – they are both shy with communication difficulties – how do they come to have a baby? Q2, Mrs Zulu is a fresh convert but Mr Zulu has been in the church a long time and should know better so how come Q2a he formed a relationship with someone who at the time was not a Christian and Q2b how come he slept with her and Q2c what has the church said to them about this matter? A2a and 2b - Clearly where we make mistakes and repent we can and are forgiven. Clearly not everyone’s business should be publicised in the church. A2c I personally felt a definite sense of the presence of God at their wedding. And If God endorsed it, then so do I.
- I also celebrated another son’s 16th birthday with a meal at Chiquitos and a family bowling session (which I won of course, but strangely my arthritic wife who could barely lift the ball came second)
- Mothers Day – lots of chocolate, cards and flowers.
- People are still commenting on my sermon last week. One does not do it for self aggrandisement but it’s good to et the feedback that you are hitting the spot.
- My wife came to the evening service for the first time in months.
Friday, February 22
“Time to remarry after divorce”
A lot of people using search words like the above find my blog.
You’re missing the point, guys! You may be asking about a point of law, but time does not bury your past sins. God does not endorse serial monogamy. You need to re-evaluate your plans and motives, and seek fresh guidance from the Lord.
(Yes, we can have sins forgiven and we can have a new life through our Lord Jesus, and we can debate the theology of remarriage where your ex was sexually unfaithful. But ‘time’ does not come into the equation except perhaps to check that you are not just ‘on the bounce’, and that is not a fixed period. )
You’re missing the point, guys! You may be asking about a point of law, but time does not bury your past sins. God does not endorse serial monogamy. You need to re-evaluate your plans and motives, and seek fresh guidance from the Lord.
(Yes, we can have sins forgiven and we can have a new life through our Lord Jesus, and we can debate the theology of remarriage where your ex was sexually unfaithful. But ‘time’ does not come into the equation except perhaps to check that you are not just ‘on the bounce’, and that is not a fixed period. )
Monday, January 7
More on divorce and remarriage - like I'm an expert or something!
Deut 24v 2 1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled.
Verse 2 clearly permits the divorced woman to remarry, even though it seems she is the one guilty of adultery.
In fact, this whole business of 'giving her a certificate', is because the one holding the certificate needs to prove something - in this case the divorced woman needs the certificate to prove that the first man has relinquished his claim on her and she is available - for remarriage of course.
Taking this verse in conjunction with Matt 5:32 and 19:9, where the man divorces his wife becasue of adultery, he too is free to remarry - the exception applies. So, where there has been adultery, the 'one-flesh' bond has been broken, and both partners are free to remarry.
However, where adultery has not occurred, the 'one-flesh' bond still stands. therefore, although legally free to remarry, and in fact the phrase 'causes her to commit adultery' assumes/implies/acknowledges that in practice she has no option but to remarry, such remarriage would be adulterous.
Thus, if your marriage has been broken by adultery, you are free to remarry. But you can't use the divorce laws to legitimise a proposed wife-swap: it's still adultery, and you can't use divorce laws to legitimise serial monogamy: its still adultery, and if you do divorce without adultery, the one-flesh bond remains until death and further marriages or relationships are adultery.
And, where there has been adultery, although divorce is permitted, it is not mandatory. It is not even desirable.
God wants us to remain faithful to our first marriage partner, and to keep the marriage bed pure.
Verse 2 clearly permits the divorced woman to remarry, even though it seems she is the one guilty of adultery.
In fact, this whole business of 'giving her a certificate', is because the one holding the certificate needs to prove something - in this case the divorced woman needs the certificate to prove that the first man has relinquished his claim on her and she is available - for remarriage of course.
Taking this verse in conjunction with Matt 5:32 and 19:9, where the man divorces his wife becasue of adultery, he too is free to remarry - the exception applies. So, where there has been adultery, the 'one-flesh' bond has been broken, and both partners are free to remarry.
However, where adultery has not occurred, the 'one-flesh' bond still stands. therefore, although legally free to remarry, and in fact the phrase 'causes her to commit adultery' assumes/implies/acknowledges that in practice she has no option but to remarry, such remarriage would be adulterous.
Thus, if your marriage has been broken by adultery, you are free to remarry. But you can't use the divorce laws to legitimise a proposed wife-swap: it's still adultery, and you can't use divorce laws to legitimise serial monogamy: its still adultery, and if you do divorce without adultery, the one-flesh bond remains until death and further marriages or relationships are adultery.
And, where there has been adultery, although divorce is permitted, it is not mandatory. It is not even desirable.
God wants us to remain faithful to our first marriage partner, and to keep the marriage bed pure.
Friday, January 4
Sex leads to Virgin Birth
I think I am having a Eureka moment, but it’s still a bit vague and hasn’t quite crystallised yet.
Sam Norton has been talking about the virgin birth. Kyle Potter has been talking about marriage and this has led to a wider debate on sexuality in the comments. Martin Hallett has been talking to me about ‘one flesh’ as a divine mystery.
Martin says that the orgasm is a celebration of the creative act of God. From this conversation I have concluded that the primary function of sexuality is for relationship/procreation. I don’t place them in any order or make too great a distinction between them, and yet they can exist independently. You can relate to your sexual partner without procreation, to can have a baby without the parents being in relationship. Independently, they are in their own way expressions of the image of God but the fullest image of him is where they come together. [dare I say….cum together?] So man and woman become one flesh, in relationship, in the jigsawing-together of their bodies, but equally in the creation of a new life that combines theirs.
So, how do we view the virgin birth through this vision of sexuality?
Sexual reproduction creates a NEW human who is a combined version of the parents; a whole that is more than the sum of the halves; a whole in which the halves cannot be distinguished.
So, if Christ’s conception was a sexual one his person would be a NEW human, not the pre-existing ‘Word-Son’ of God through whom the universe was created.
And, if Christ’s conception was a sexual one his person would be part Mary, part A.N. Other; a whole that is more than the sum of the halves; a whole in which the halves cannot be distinguished. Yet our knowledge of Christ through the scriptures and the church fathers and the creeds is that Christ is part human and part divine; a whole that is more than the sum of the halves; a whole in which the halves cannot be distinguished. If Christ was born of a one-flesh human union, then he was fully human, and only fully human. He was a new creation, not an incarnation. There is no way for him to become Divine.
It is because of ‘one flesh’ union that each child is a celebration of the image of the creator god. It is about creation of something new, not incarnation of something old.
It is because of ‘one-flesh’ that virgin birth is necessary, for Christ was not a new creation.
It is because of ‘one-flesh’ that for Christ to be divine his origin must be divine, not human.
It is because of ‘one-flesh’ that Christ’s conception was not sexual, but incarnational.
It is because of ‘one-flesh’ that we must so jealously guard and carefully cultivate our relationships, our actions, our theology of marriage, our theology of contraception, our theology of divorce, our theology of homosexuality, and our church practices on these issues.
It is because of ‘one-flesh’ that our sexuality is the image of God – three in one, diversity within unity of relationship and of substance; diversity and unity within relationship and substance; diversity and unity in relationship creating substance.
It is because of ‘one-flesh’ that the contrast of virgin birth is so vivid and so dramatic and so important.
It is only by understanding ‘one-flesh’ that we can understand virgin birth.
Eureka?
(maybe the Lord is indeed calling me to become a Roman Catholic!)
Sam Norton has been talking about the virgin birth. Kyle Potter has been talking about marriage and this has led to a wider debate on sexuality in the comments. Martin Hallett has been talking to me about ‘one flesh’ as a divine mystery.
Martin says that the orgasm is a celebration of the creative act of God. From this conversation I have concluded that the primary function of sexuality is for relationship/procreation. I don’t place them in any order or make too great a distinction between them, and yet they can exist independently. You can relate to your sexual partner without procreation, to can have a baby without the parents being in relationship. Independently, they are in their own way expressions of the image of God but the fullest image of him is where they come together. [dare I say….cum together?] So man and woman become one flesh, in relationship, in the jigsawing-together of their bodies, but equally in the creation of a new life that combines theirs.
So, how do we view the virgin birth through this vision of sexuality?
Sexual reproduction creates a NEW human who is a combined version of the parents; a whole that is more than the sum of the halves; a whole in which the halves cannot be distinguished.
So, if Christ’s conception was a sexual one his person would be a NEW human, not the pre-existing ‘Word-Son’ of God through whom the universe was created.
And, if Christ’s conception was a sexual one his person would be part Mary, part A.N. Other; a whole that is more than the sum of the halves; a whole in which the halves cannot be distinguished. Yet our knowledge of Christ through the scriptures and the church fathers and the creeds is that Christ is part human and part divine; a whole that is more than the sum of the halves; a whole in which the halves cannot be distinguished. If Christ was born of a one-flesh human union, then he was fully human, and only fully human. He was a new creation, not an incarnation. There is no way for him to become Divine.
It is because of ‘one flesh’ union that each child is a celebration of the image of the creator god. It is about creation of something new, not incarnation of something old.
It is because of ‘one-flesh’ that virgin birth is necessary, for Christ was not a new creation.
It is because of ‘one-flesh’ that for Christ to be divine his origin must be divine, not human.
It is because of ‘one-flesh’ that Christ’s conception was not sexual, but incarnational.
It is because of ‘one-flesh’ that we must so jealously guard and carefully cultivate our relationships, our actions, our theology of marriage, our theology of contraception, our theology of divorce, our theology of homosexuality, and our church practices on these issues.
It is because of ‘one-flesh’ that our sexuality is the image of God – three in one, diversity within unity of relationship and of substance; diversity and unity within relationship and substance; diversity and unity in relationship creating substance.
It is because of ‘one-flesh’ that the contrast of virgin birth is so vivid and so dramatic and so important.
It is only by understanding ‘one-flesh’ that we can understand virgin birth.
Eureka?
(maybe the Lord is indeed calling me to become a Roman Catholic!)
Thursday, January 3
Remarriage after Divorce
Vindicated has an interesting point to make on remarriage after divorce. Together with scathing comments on our casual acceptance of serial monogamy amongst Christians, he asks if we are going to be strict against gay marriage should we not be equally strict against remarriage after divorce?
A point well made. Christians are adept at holding double standards.
I believe the biblical pattern is a choice of celibacy or lifelong heterosexual monogamy. Homosexual acts are never described in any positive way. Celibacy is commended as the path best suited to the service of Christ. Those unable to embrace celibacy are permitted to marry, and this is always described in a heterosexual context.
So, what when it goes wrong?
Moses permitted divorce. This should be read in the context of arranged marriages, and we should be cautious about how we apply it to a Western romantic marriage. It was not there for when they stopped feeling gooey, it was primarily a remedy for a breach of the arranged marriage contract. (see the story of Mary and Joseph)
Jesus explains that this provision was not part of God’s desired plan – it was a pragmatic response to the hardness of hearts of the men. God hates divorce.
Jesus also rejected the notion that you can legitimise adultery by legally divorcing your wife so that you can legally marry your mistress – it may be legal but it is still immoral. But note that remarriage after divorce was permitted in the law, otherwise Jesus would not have been able to make this comment. I don’t think Jesus is rejecting remarriage per se. I think he is saying you can’t divorce with the intention of remarriage. And when he makes the exception – “except for some uncleaness”, I think he is saying that if your partner has been unfaithful then you are permitted to remarry.
This covers the case where a partner wants to use divorce to legitimise adultery [no you can’t] and the case where adultery has already occurred and the innocent party is permitted to remarry. But what of the case where a marriage has simply broken down? I think divorce is permitted, but not remarriage. An example is in Corinthians – if one half of a pagan couple is converted and the pagan divorces the Christian, so be it, but the person is not free to remarry until the pagan dies. And I think we should enforce this just as strictly as our anti-gay-marriage stance. I used to think that if a reasonable time passed and the divorcee met a new person not connected with the original divorce, and was not simply on the rebound, then marriage would be permitted, but I have moved away from that view.
That’s what I think, and because I think it, it must be true because I am always right, by definition. Honest, guv.
But what do we do now that we do have remarried couples from cases where there has been no adultery?
If gay civil partners came to join my church, for their membership to be meaningful I would feel they should separate, and if that us unacceptable to them they should go to a church with different doctrines. Should we equally ask remarried people to separate? Ezra made the people who had wrongly married pagans to divorce them. On the other hand, David was permitted to continue with Bathsheba, even though his marriage to her was effectively adulterous, and she was blessed by God with inclusion in the genealogy of Christ. I read somewhere that as soon as you consummate your marriage to a previously divorced person, the act breaks the bond with the former partner and forms a new bond with the new partner. I don’t like that approach, though I can see where it is coming from.
It seems to me that the question is all about ‘One flesh’. One flesh is not simply about penetration, though that is essential, or about the exchange of ‘seed’, though that is essential, or about having a baby, though that is the fullest expression of it. ‘One flesh’ is about the unity of the two halves – the reunion of Adam and his rib. It is also about Christ and the church. These illustrations for me exclude homosexual relationships. [if I go to the hardware store and there is a box of electric plugs and a box of electric sockets, I can choose what I want from the boxes but I only get a flow of electricity if I put the plugs into the sockets and they are connected to the mains and to the lamp/machinery – that is the only way they fulfil their designed functions - if i put plugs together or sockets together nothing happens even if they are wired up - it's not what they were made for.]
Lifelong heterosexual monogamy is the fulfilment of ‘one flesh’ Anything else damages ‘one flesh’. Which is why Paul will not take the members of Christ and become one flesh with a prostitute. Pre marital sex, extra marital sex, polygamous sex, serial monogamous sex, all mess up the ‘one flesh’.
But Christ is pragmatic. Not that he compromises, but that he understands sin, and is not thwarted by it. In Christ there is healing. In Christ, the wounds to the flesh are restored.
Abraham the friend of God, had Sarah, Hagar and Keturah. Israel, the prince with God, had four wives. David, the man after God’s own heart, had six wives. Rahab the prostitute and adulterous Bathsheba are ancestors of Christ. So is Tamar, through her entrapment of her father in law.
So this is my verdict.
Heterosexual relationships, even broken and sinful ones such as remarriage after a non-qualifying divorce, can be redeemed, can be blessed, and can somehow reflect a healed and restored ‘one flesh’, whereas homosexual ones cannot because they are do not meet the intention of 'one flesh'. Find me one place in scripture where a sexual same-sex relationship is blessed in any way, and I will review this verdict.
And so I do not find any hypocrisy or inconsistency in remarrying [some] divorcees but not homosexuals, or in pragmatically accepting imperfect heterosexual marriages but not gay ones.
But let us apply these theoretical theological viewpoints at all times with love, compassion, and empathy. We should not dilute the truth, neither should we beat people with it.
A point well made. Christians are adept at holding double standards.
I believe the biblical pattern is a choice of celibacy or lifelong heterosexual monogamy. Homosexual acts are never described in any positive way. Celibacy is commended as the path best suited to the service of Christ. Those unable to embrace celibacy are permitted to marry, and this is always described in a heterosexual context.
So, what when it goes wrong?
Moses permitted divorce. This should be read in the context of arranged marriages, and we should be cautious about how we apply it to a Western romantic marriage. It was not there for when they stopped feeling gooey, it was primarily a remedy for a breach of the arranged marriage contract. (see the story of Mary and Joseph)
Jesus explains that this provision was not part of God’s desired plan – it was a pragmatic response to the hardness of hearts of the men. God hates divorce.
Jesus also rejected the notion that you can legitimise adultery by legally divorcing your wife so that you can legally marry your mistress – it may be legal but it is still immoral. But note that remarriage after divorce was permitted in the law, otherwise Jesus would not have been able to make this comment. I don’t think Jesus is rejecting remarriage per se. I think he is saying you can’t divorce with the intention of remarriage. And when he makes the exception – “except for some uncleaness”, I think he is saying that if your partner has been unfaithful then you are permitted to remarry.
This covers the case where a partner wants to use divorce to legitimise adultery [no you can’t] and the case where adultery has already occurred and the innocent party is permitted to remarry. But what of the case where a marriage has simply broken down? I think divorce is permitted, but not remarriage. An example is in Corinthians – if one half of a pagan couple is converted and the pagan divorces the Christian, so be it, but the person is not free to remarry until the pagan dies. And I think we should enforce this just as strictly as our anti-gay-marriage stance. I used to think that if a reasonable time passed and the divorcee met a new person not connected with the original divorce, and was not simply on the rebound, then marriage would be permitted, but I have moved away from that view.
That’s what I think, and because I think it, it must be true because I am always right, by definition. Honest, guv.
But what do we do now that we do have remarried couples from cases where there has been no adultery?
If gay civil partners came to join my church, for their membership to be meaningful I would feel they should separate, and if that us unacceptable to them they should go to a church with different doctrines. Should we equally ask remarried people to separate? Ezra made the people who had wrongly married pagans to divorce them. On the other hand, David was permitted to continue with Bathsheba, even though his marriage to her was effectively adulterous, and she was blessed by God with inclusion in the genealogy of Christ. I read somewhere that as soon as you consummate your marriage to a previously divorced person, the act breaks the bond with the former partner and forms a new bond with the new partner. I don’t like that approach, though I can see where it is coming from.
It seems to me that the question is all about ‘One flesh’. One flesh is not simply about penetration, though that is essential, or about the exchange of ‘seed’, though that is essential, or about having a baby, though that is the fullest expression of it. ‘One flesh’ is about the unity of the two halves – the reunion of Adam and his rib. It is also about Christ and the church. These illustrations for me exclude homosexual relationships. [if I go to the hardware store and there is a box of electric plugs and a box of electric sockets, I can choose what I want from the boxes but I only get a flow of electricity if I put the plugs into the sockets and they are connected to the mains and to the lamp/machinery – that is the only way they fulfil their designed functions - if i put plugs together or sockets together nothing happens even if they are wired up - it's not what they were made for.]
Lifelong heterosexual monogamy is the fulfilment of ‘one flesh’ Anything else damages ‘one flesh’. Which is why Paul will not take the members of Christ and become one flesh with a prostitute. Pre marital sex, extra marital sex, polygamous sex, serial monogamous sex, all mess up the ‘one flesh’.
But Christ is pragmatic. Not that he compromises, but that he understands sin, and is not thwarted by it. In Christ there is healing. In Christ, the wounds to the flesh are restored.
Abraham the friend of God, had Sarah, Hagar and Keturah. Israel, the prince with God, had four wives. David, the man after God’s own heart, had six wives. Rahab the prostitute and adulterous Bathsheba are ancestors of Christ. So is Tamar, through her entrapment of her father in law.
So this is my verdict.
Heterosexual relationships, even broken and sinful ones such as remarriage after a non-qualifying divorce, can be redeemed, can be blessed, and can somehow reflect a healed and restored ‘one flesh’, whereas homosexual ones cannot because they are do not meet the intention of 'one flesh'. Find me one place in scripture where a sexual same-sex relationship is blessed in any way, and I will review this verdict.
And so I do not find any hypocrisy or inconsistency in remarrying [some] divorcees but not homosexuals, or in pragmatically accepting imperfect heterosexual marriages but not gay ones.
But let us apply these theoretical theological viewpoints at all times with love, compassion, and empathy. We should not dilute the truth, neither should we beat people with it.
Friday, November 30
Making love...and marital conflict
This is not a comment on anyone I know particularly – just a general observation.
Men are aware that ‘making love’ is largely a matter of hormones. Their loins call to action, [or not] without necessarily having a correlation to the state of the relationship. On this level, they can understand if she ‘has a headache’.
However, much is in the phrase ‘making love’, which is a female phrase. Men are usually satisfied with earthier euphemisms. But women like to ‘make love’ and associate it very closely with romance and the state of the relationship.
Great.
But…. Women frequently have less animal hormonal drive than men do.
The men can understand this and can cope with it per se, but because the woman has gone to such lengths to stress that it is all about lurve and relationship, when the woman isn’t in the mood simply because her hormones are low, the man can only interpret her frigidity as a lack of love and a poor state of relationship.
The man then feels unloved, and goes off to find appreciation somewhere else.
The woman then also feels unloved and rejected, but does not realise that it is all because of the language that she insisted upon and the stress she put on the relational aspects of it at the expense of the biological aspect.
In summary, I encourage women everywhere to safeguard their marriages by less talk of love and a more honest discussion about earthy biological animal shagging. They will then find that in mutual biological pleasure, bonding hormones are released, from which grow real and honest love and commitment. The man and the woman will both feel appreciated and secure. Yes, making love is about lurve… but lets not forget it’s about the making of it as well as the expression of it.
Men are aware that ‘making love’ is largely a matter of hormones. Their loins call to action, [or not] without necessarily having a correlation to the state of the relationship. On this level, they can understand if she ‘has a headache’.
However, much is in the phrase ‘making love’, which is a female phrase. Men are usually satisfied with earthier euphemisms. But women like to ‘make love’ and associate it very closely with romance and the state of the relationship.
Great.
But…. Women frequently have less animal hormonal drive than men do.
The men can understand this and can cope with it per se, but because the woman has gone to such lengths to stress that it is all about lurve and relationship, when the woman isn’t in the mood simply because her hormones are low, the man can only interpret her frigidity as a lack of love and a poor state of relationship.
The man then feels unloved, and goes off to find appreciation somewhere else.
The woman then also feels unloved and rejected, but does not realise that it is all because of the language that she insisted upon and the stress she put on the relational aspects of it at the expense of the biological aspect.
In summary, I encourage women everywhere to safeguard their marriages by less talk of love and a more honest discussion about earthy biological animal shagging. They will then find that in mutual biological pleasure, bonding hormones are released, from which grow real and honest love and commitment. The man and the woman will both feel appreciated and secure. Yes, making love is about lurve… but lets not forget it’s about the making of it as well as the expression of it.
Thursday, April 19
Marriage difficulties
Not my own; my friends'. But that is scary, and my experiences are not always transferabe...his wife is not my wife and reacts differently. i can't really talk about it here. But please pray for christians with marriage problems - the devil loves to attack in this way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)