Single Mother?

I was reminded recently of an episode that occurred as a child when my father was pastoring a small country church. It was a typical little congregation, filled with saints and sinners.

One Christmas season, as we were preparing for whatever festivities that were going to be presented, arrangement was being made for the manger scene. This is where the problem began.

It so happened that a teenage girl in the congregation had recently given birth to a little boy. This is a wonderful thing, except that she hadn't bothered to marry the father. In spite of this little, shall we say, issue, the parents, more so the mother, of the girl approached my Dad with what they thought was the wonderful idea of using the little boy as Baby Jesus in the church pageant.

Now, my Dad was a Godly man who loved sinners and worked and prayed for their salvation. He was a moral man who felt that sexual activity and child births should be within a marriage. So, he tried, gently, but firmly, to explain to the parents and the young girl that he thought that that would be a really bad idea. He expressed, as best he could, that he believed that, while a child is just a child and certainly no fault lay with the child, it would set a bad example for the young ladies of the church to, (my words,) celebrate and glorify this birth and carry on as if there is actually nothing amiss in the given situation.

Needless to say, the parents and the girl did not understand nor share his views on contrition and humility. I don't recall them leaving the church, but I've known people to leave for less.

I thought of this because I recently read a post that someone placed on Face Book that shared an unnerving sentiment that I have heard expressed elsewhere. It caused me no small amount of consternation and it took what little self control I have to keep from lashing out at the poster.

The post itself, although it may have had good intent, was written by a good pro-lifer who was discussing our Christian attitudes toward women who had "unwanted" pregnancies. It went on to talk about how we need to love them and encourage them and do all we can, with compassion, to discourage them from aborting their innocent children. I was in pretty much full agreement until Mother Mary was dragged into the thesis and the author stated that even she was an "unwed mother." Sheesh!

I was incensed! As I said, I've heard this asinine argument before, but am constantly befuddled how someone of good intelligence and education can make such a statement. Even a quick study of the scriptures and a modicum of knowledge about Hebrew history tells us that, when she first became pregnant, Mary was legally betrothed to Joseph. Any honest definition of betrothal makes it clear that, for all intents and purposes, it is a legally binding marriage. Simply put, it is marriage without the benefits. The bride and bridegroom are to keep themselves pure for a the year or so until their actual marriage ceremony as, if nothing else, a sign that it was not a marriage of necessity. It would have even been necessary for Joseph to "put away," legally divorce, Mary, as it was his plan to do when he first learned of the child.

Fast forward to today's society. We live in a world where debauchery is the norm and many, too many women and men are breeders as opposed to truly being parents. For some years, I've heard a term tossed around carelessly that has become a gross misnomer and is bandied about in a most politically correct and abused manner. It is the term "single mother." I hear preachers, politicians and even people I work with using it in a fly-away fashion with no thought as to what it might truly imply.

Today, a "single mother" is defined, mostly, as a woman with a child where the father does not live with her. Now, that definition is scary at best. If a woman has a man's baby, but doesn't marry him, she is considered a "single mother." If a woman has a man's baby and lives with a different man, she is considered a "single mother." If a woman has a man's baby and is married to another man, she is considered a "single mother." One other definition might apply: If a woman has a man's child and he is deceased, she is likely considered a "single mother."

So, what's the difference? Simple enough!

If a woman is promiscuous and finds herself pregnant, if the man isn't present in her life, she will be considered a "single mother." If she marries a man, becomes pregnant, and tires of him or argues with him or whatever, if they divorce, she will be considered a "single mother." It matters little how involved or uninvolved in the child's life the man is.

I, incidentally, work with a young girl who seems desperately trying to become impregnated by the twice-her-age degenerate with whom she is keeping company. If she manages to do so, will she be considered a "single mother"? Certainly!

Politicians and talking-heads are constantly throwing this phrase around to describe women who, not so many years ago, would have been described merely as having low moral character. It would have been said that they had been better off if they had only practiced a little self control. Yet, if you say they should do so, you will be called, mean, heartless, insensitive and worse.

This entire line of reasoning has come to bother me more and more over the past few years. We have had to watch as thousands of young patriots have given their lives overseas, leaving wives and children behind who are left to struggle with the loss of a beloved husband and father. I think of Chris Kyle and his friend who were murdered by a deranged man leaving behind weeping and grieving loved ones. Many more have had similar losses over the years and we, (although the term seems to be more or less new,) refer to them as "single mothers."

The problem? Is there not a difference between a woman who finds herself in these circumstances through her own actions and woman who loses her husband in the line of duty as a soldier, fireman or policeman? Does the former really understand the situation of the latter?

Please don't misunderstand. I am glad today, when it is so easy to do otherwise, when a woman chooses life over death. Still, we have more choices than to simply praise them for their sin. We can love them in spite of their sin! We should be honest and set a moral example, making it clear that wrong is wrong and right is right, but praise the good choices while condemning the bad ones. Like my father, we should avoid elevating the sinful action without condemning the sinner.

Alas, today, political correctness and the desire for votes and viewers have declared that any woman, under any circumstances, who has a crumb-cruncher and no present father, is a "single mother." Her behavior and lack of self-control are never, ever called into question. She is given praise, acclaim and a government paycheck. All she is asked for in return, is her vote!
　

Going West

More than a few sermons, books and Sunday School lessons have been based on the Jordan crossing of the Children of Israel. Although most of them have contained valuable concepts and great lessons, a few questions have sprung to my mind over the years.

How strange and terrifying must it have been for those Canaanites who lived north of the Jordan crossing, when Joshua first lead the children of Israel into the Promised Land? What, I wonder, went through their minds as they watched the waters of the Jordan flood their fields and homes for days as, perhaps unknown to them, a million Hebrews were going over.

As for those living south of the crossing, how horrified would they have been to see the waters of Jordan swiftly wane and  trickle to nothing for no apparent reason? Did they fear that somehow the water had been dammed off or the rains on the Mountains of Hermon had simply stopped? Did they think that some curse of their gods had taken from them the blessing of the always reliable Jordan River?

They must have known, had to have known, that the Hebrews were sojourning east of the Jordan. But could they even guess that their plan, for forty years, was to cross over and settle the already inhabited land of Canaan? Did they see or, at least, hear the teaming thousands as Joshua lead them across the now dry river bottom?

As for those heathen on the east side, who had watched in awe for decades as the cloud by day and fire by night lead the twelve tribes around the wilderness, to see it suddenly turn west, did they also see the mass of dust kicked up by a million pairs of feet moving away from them? Would they have even began to understand what was about to happen?  Were they presumptuous enough to think that that was a good thing?

How about those on the west side of Jordan? Did they see the people? Did they hear the noise? Did they comprehend exactly what was coming? Did they realize how much trouble they were in?

For its current residents, it must have been a sight to behold to witness this mass, not exodus, but mass penetration into a land where they themselves had lived for centuries. Did they realize just how dangerous things were about to get for them? Did they feel save because the Hebrews seemed like Lilliputians to them? Did they feel safe in their walled cities? Well, we all know how that ultimately worked out for them.

What about those who actually observed the crossing? What did they think when they saw the waters of the Jordan river wall up on the north side and deplete on the south? What did they think as that wall of water grew taller and taller and broader and broader? What could they have thought as they saw a million Hebrews march across the, albeit narrow, dry river basin? What might they have thought as they even saw them take the time to build an alter of stones in the middle of the now thirsty river bed? One can only imagine their shock and awe, amazement and befuddlement!

It all must have been a breathtaking sight, indeed. No doubt so, but I can only assume that while the ground may have been dry under the feet of the children of Israel crossing Jordan, it would definitely have been wet under the feet of the pagans fearfully observing this, for them, disheartening spectacle!