Marriage Has Been Surrendered To The Scientists When There Is Nothing Scientific About
Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “You notice how the eggheads have to apply all these big, fancy-schmancy words and terms to what is just simply in the traditional teaching of Christianity? Christians already knew this. You should know this. You should be willing to defend this if it takes it to the end of your life. Marriage is between a man and woman, consecrated under the authority of God.” Check out today’s transcript for the rest….
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript Mike: New York Times headline from St. Patrick’s Day, March 17, “Largest Presbyterian Denomination Gives Final Approval for Same-Sex Marriage.” Wow, I didn’t know that the Presbyterian Church had an up-or-down veto vote of the wedding at Cana. I didn’t know that the Presbyterian Church had an up-or-down vote or a right to vote on whether or not St. John the Baptist was correct when he was beheaded for defending marriage as defined by our Lord and by the Old Testament that preceded him. I didn’t know that that was up for a vote. Maybe St. John the Baptist should have voted with Herod, right? That way he’d be in sync with modern, smart, evolved man. Apparently St. John the Baptist. Apparently our Lord at Cana was incorrect. Apparently our Lord at the well, speaking to the harlot and then the disciples afterwards and the Pharisees in the temple was incorrect. He didn’t know what he was talking about. Amazing stuff here, folks. Dangerous, dark times in which we live, which means it ought to be that much easier to become a saint. You will stand out in a crowd, my brothers and sisters, should you choose to. Then there’s this one.
Folks, I’m full of them here today. I’m not going to get a quarter of the stuff that I have in the Pile of Prep here today. While we’re on the subject of rights and wrongs, classical liberal thought and education, which we don’t have any longer – if you want a classical liberal education for your children, you’re going to have to teach it to them. You can send them to the most pricy prep school and the most pricy university in the United States, in the Western world, and they will not receive a classical liberal education. They will not receive the triumvirate. [mocking] “What’s the triumvirate, Mike? That’s a big word. I don’t understand this.” Of course you do. All men are meant to do three things. You have your rhetoric, you have your oration, and you have your writing. You teach that young person how to talk, which we do in some manner, but talking comes after the first. You teach them how to talk, you teach them how to write, and then you teach them how to speak. You have those three, the grammarian, the oratory and the rhetorical. When you teach those three things, then you go onto the quadrivium, which just expands upon that. Listen to this one, Rod Dreher at American Conservative Magazine blog yesterday. “It Really Was The Culture, Stupid.”
[reading] Jordan Weissman, who covers economics for Slate, says “liberals shouldn’t be afraid to admit” that cultural change destroyed the two-parent family. [Mike: That’s a whopper. I might put that one under revelation of the day, confession of the day.] There are obvious reasons to be skeptical about affluent pundits who jump to blame society’s ills on moral decadence and decay; namely, it’s a convenient excuse not to spend tax dollars fixing the country’s problems. That said, I think more liberals need to get comfortable acknowledging that, even if it doesn’t explain the whole story, culture probably has played a role in the changes that have rocked domestic life for so much of the country. [Mike: This is a review of a book by a writer named Putnam. The book is called Our Kids.] Putnam makes this point early in Our Kids: Of the values-versus-economics debate, he says simply that, “The most reasonable view is that both are important.” How come? For one, we can look back to the Great Depression as an historical counterpoint to the trends we’ve witnessed in recent decades. With mass unemployment, the marriage rate tumbled during the 1930s, “showing the perennial importance of economic stability in the marriage calculus.” [end reading] Mike: You notice how the eggheads have to apply all these big, fancy-schmancy words and terms to what is just simply in the traditional teaching of Christianity? Christians already knew this. You should know this. You should be willing to defend this if it takes it to the end of your life. Marriage is between a man and woman, consecrated under the authority of God. What’s the purpose? Bring children into the world. Is that a responsibility? It’s the greatest responsibility man has. Man marries woman, they bring children forth. Be fruitful and multiply they were told. They bring children forth. As a reward for this, God then implants in every child born or every child conceived – you libs almost had me for a moment – God implants a soul, an immortal, eternal soul. This is why keeping your eyes on eternity is important. The soul will outlive this corrupt piece of flesh that we call a body. It’s boilerplate stuff. I don’t know why I constantly feel compelled to explain this but I do. [reading] At the same, however, the birth rate also fell, and unwed childbearing remained rare. “In that era, men and women postponed procreation as well as matrimony,” Putnam writes. “’No marriage license, no kids’ was the cultural norm. Unlike today, desperately poor, jobless men in the 1930s did not have kids outside of marriage whom they then largely ignored.” [end reading]
Mike: Again, this is some sort of a sanitizing of something that is natural and beautiful. We sanitize this. In other words, we can make something that is spiritual – a relationship between man and wife is not scientific. It’s not predicated upon a stupid license that you get at a courthouse. It’s predicated upon a vow made under the eyes of Almighty God. You make a vow and it is consecrated. It is holy. It is sacred. It’s not scientific and you don’t need science to explain it. You don’t need science to understand it. This is a spiritual
– in other words, it’s understood spiritually. To try and break this down and place it in the realm of science is the error. It’s not scientific. Now, it may have a component, an accidental science component where we can measure how many people got married. That’s the realm of science. The actual marriage itself is not.
FOLKS, a message from Mike – The Project 76 features, Church Doctrine videos and everything else on this site are supported by YOU. We have over 70, of my personally designed, written, produced and directed products for sale in the Founders Tradin’ Post, 24/7, here. You can also support our efforts with a Founders Pass membership granting total access to years of My work for just .17 cents per day. Thanks for 17 years of mike church.com! – Mike
You know the amazing part about this? What I’m trying to explain or asking for your patience and indulgence to explain is that this was known by peasants, men and women who had no formal education whatever. This was known to them. Not only did they know it, they revered it, yes, through all the problems and strife and suffering. This is why we must be careful, ladies and gentlemen. Do not concede this ground of marriage to the scientists. This is not their ground. This is another part of the error. Too many of us have ceded this ground to the scientists. Whether you’ve ceded it to the scientists at Johns Hopkins University or whether you’ve ceded it to the political scientists in your state legislature, this is the error. End Mike Church Show Transcript