Jesus warned us about people like Denney
March 16th, 2005Having been raised Catholic and living in a predominately Christian nation for more than half a century now, with half of those years spent in the Bible Belt, I’ve come to a startling conclusion. I’ve known just as many folks who are not Christians who practice Christian ethics as I do those who call themselves Christians.
Most of the Christians I know are pick and choose Christians. They believe the Bible is the word of God, except for a few things here and there, especially in the Old Testament. They’ll continually make excuses for repeating the same sins over and over, blaming it on temptation; that damn curse of original sin. They are quick to point out they are not perfect Christians, taking pride in acknowledging their intentions to live a sinful life, all the while proclaiming their righteousness over non-believers.
Hey, I fault no one in their sincere quest for spirituality. But there is a problem building around these parts that good folks need to address. A problem that Jesus Christ himself warned of.
“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves,” (Matthew 7:15)
Interpreting Biblical passages is a tricky business, but I think this message is one of the more self definitive.
This finally brings me to the point of this post. A quote from one of Oklahoma’s own elected “prophets” on her crusade to ban common law marriage.
“I firmly believe the concept of traditional marriage should be our standard for marriages in Oklahoma,” said Rep. Lee Denney, R-Cushing, the bill’s author. “We need to strengthen marriage in Oklahoma by returning it to its Christian foundation. Common law marriage does not have a Christian foundation because the man and the woman have not made a commitment to each other before God.”
In Rep. Denney’s lengthy press release about marriage, the importance of foundation, commitment, God, and family is spattered throughout. Love is not mentioned even once.
I happen to know of an Oklahoma couple who have been together for about 30 years as man and wife. They raised two children who happen to be both Christians, with children of their own. These folks have worked hard, paid taxes and contributed to their community. They are more “Christian” than most Christians I know, yet their marriage was never authorized by God or government. Theirs is nothing but a common marriage based on love and devotion.
Rep. Denney is likely a woman with strong morals. She probably goes to church every Sunday and regularly repents her sins. Yet, if she really believed in her righteous rhetoric about the sanctity of a marriage contract, her bill would also ban divorce outright by any couple making a life-long commitment under God. But I have a feeling Rep. Denney is a pick and choose Christian.
I don’t know the solution to keeping couples together, but I do know one thing; Rep. Lee Denney wouldn’t make a decent pimple on a true Christian’s ass.
March 16th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
Make me laugh out loud, the truth can be so funny. I even know Atheists who make better Christians than some “Christians” I have met.
March 16th, 2005 at 1:36 pm
Bravo! Last year, her television ad campaign began with something to the effect of, “Lee Denney. Married for XX years, mother of XX. She has strong family values…” you get the drift, and you most likely remember the ad.
Virtually every politician, including the most vile, has been married and had children, so what kind of a reccommendation was that supposed to be?
Lynette and I got married at College Hill Presbyterian Church in Tulsa in 2001. The service was officiated by our pastor, and was attended by the congregation. We had a reception in the fellowship hall and were sent on our way, with our Best Man and Matron of honor. We are totally committed, and divorce is a word that just never enters our mind. This is a lifer, folks. So why wasn’t our “application” for marriage accepted by the state? Because we’re the same gender.
Makes no sense to me.
March 16th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
I forgot to mention that we’re raising Lynette’s three teenaged kids, taking care of my 34 year-old autistic son, and cared for my semi-invalid mother in our home until her death last December. If this isn’t “family Values,” what is?
March 16th, 2005 at 3:01 pm
To quote from the Oklahoma Supreme Court case that recognized common law marriage in Oklahoma (the practice was previously recognized by both Oklahoma & Indian territory courts prior to statehood)…
From: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=14450&hits=6637+6636+6635+6634+6633+3123+3122+3121+3120+3119+3101+3100+3099+3098+3097+5+4+3+2+1+
In re LOVE’S ESTATE, 142 P. 305
Decided: 07/14/1914
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
“… In the instant case, both the county and district courts found that the facts were sufficient to establish a common-law marriage. The deceased took this woman in the presence of witnesses to be his wife, moved her to another town, where they lived together as man and wife, and were known as such, until the man came to his death. At the trial of this suit a little daughter, the result of this union, sat innocently by, unconscious that her very name and future status were being determined there. We infer from the record that the property involved is insignificant, and was probably little in mind, while this woman fought for the relation of wife and for a name for her little girl. She is entitled to both. We do not propose to sit here, considering the most sacred relation of life, and construe away the status of this woman, who appears to have acted in good faith; neither will we turn the innocent result of this common-law union out into the world a nameless thing. She was begotten by a man who had voluntarily assumed the relation of husband, and she shall have the right to be called his child and bear his name.”
Taking away common-law marriage is straight-up contrary to the state’s supposed interest in encouraging and supporting marriage. (also what does the state propose to do with those who are already married in the eyes of the law and God, but who never solemnized it) Common-law marriage was created to protect the spouses in the event of probate, support, etc. Taking it away would be a step backwards.
Also I should add that if I ever do get married, I don’t plan on getting a marriage license. Seperation of Church and State should mean just that. The state never should have got into the marriage busiess to begin with.
March 17th, 2005 at 8:11 am
I just wanted to comment on your Operation Iraqi Freedom counter. My son was over there for over a year. Though he’s safely home, I still want the rest of them back as well. Teenage boys (and girls) in war? It’s just not right. Thank you for remembering them.
March 17th, 2005 at 8:59 pm
Well, you can never go wrong calling a Christian a hypocrite.
I’m no fan of religious chest-beating, but I would be wary of that epithet “false prophet.” Scholars indicate Jesus had some very specific kinds of people in mind when he used those words. He wasn’t talking about state legislators.