By Tom Quiner

Rick Warren

“It’s not about you.”

That is the first sentence in Rick Warren’s best-selling book, “The Purpose-Drive Life.”  Mr. Warren’s premise, that our lives belong to God, that true happiness only comes when we do what God placed us on earth to do, is counter-cultural.

American culture disagrees with Mr. Warren.

Our culture suggest that we need a lot of money to be happy.

Our culture suggests that we need pretty hair, big breasts, and stick figures to be happy. That we need bulging biceps and flat tummies.

And our culture suggests that children are expendable if they get in the way of our happiness.

This last aspect of American culture has a partisan twist to it. One party supports the idea that an inconvenient baby in the womb is expendable. However, both parties have embraced the notion that marriages should be easily terminated through “no-fault” divorce laws. No-fault divorce has wreaked havoc on the growing army of children being raised in broken homes.

The premise of no-fault divorce laws suggests that the emotional needs of the couple supercedes the emotional needs of the children.

The logical extension of abortion and no-fault divorce is gay marriage, which is again a partisan issue. The underlying principal of gay marriage is that one’s personal desires and behavior supercede the greater good of society and children. And yet it is children who need the benefits of traditional marriage more than anyone.

Tom Chapman is the Executive Director of the Iowa Catholic Conference. He stated it well in his piece in this morning’s Des Moines Register:

“The Des Moines Register’s Oct. 18 editorial opposing a marriage amendment and a constitutional convention – “Wrong Reason for Constitutional Convention” – called “same-sex marriage” a civil right. While it sounds fair, if one follows that reasoning to its logical conclusion, any association of any number of adults could be classified as marriage. And when everything becomes “marriage” those who need its benefits most – children – will continue to be marginalized by a debate that focuses primarily on the emotional desires of adults.”

It’s time to get serious and ask ourselves a tough question: who is it really about?

No Comments

  1. Mongo on October 28, 2010 at 10:53 am

    Tom: You simply nailed the definition of the secular left’s slogan for american culture. Good piece, today. Peace

    • quinersdiner on October 28, 2010 at 11:00 am

      I agree. We want our society to draw out the best in our nature, not the worst. Public policy seems to encourage human pathology these days, not virtue.

  2. Rhonda Phillips on October 28, 2010 at 11:00 am

    Rick Warren’s book was the catapult that God used to propel me into the pro-life movement. The bottom line is, of course, it isn’t about you. It’s about God’s will and purpose for your life. Our culture tells and sells us on the idea that it’s all about numero uno. (you). It even takes mothering to a low level when it tells mothers that they must think about themselves first before their families. I’m not advocating that mothers do not rest. Clearly that would be counterproductive for a worn out mom is of no use to herself let alone her family. The point is we should all be looking out for the saftey, welfare and security of others.
    When 50% of people who attend chuch regularly are divorced we have a problem.
    When 50% of girls aborting their children claim to attend church regularly, we have a problem
    The Church has a problem in that more people are not standing for God’s word for fear of what Society thinks. That in itself is an abominination to God.

    Mark 8:38
    Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

    Thank you to all who not only stand for and on the Word but put it in action.

  3. Doug Volkmer on October 28, 2010 at 8:25 pm

    I agree whole-heartedly. It is a shame what is being done to future generations.

  4. Nick on October 28, 2010 at 11:21 pm

    There is absolutely no evidence that I’m aware of that shows that gay marriage negatively affects the children in any quantifiable way. Considering the number of gay couples (many of them married, at least in states that allow it) who choose to raise families, I find it really odd that you would compare gay marriage to abortion (“The logical extension of abortion . . . is gay marriage”). I’d be interested to see your research for the following propositions: (1) married gay couples are less likely to choose to raise families; and (2) married gay parents are inferior to heterosexual married parents in quantifiable ways.

    • quinersdiner on October 29, 2010 at 8:34 am

      You missed the point. The institution of marriage was established to protect children. The “relationship” was not the basis for its moral underpinnings, which explains why arranged marriages have been a part of many cultures. (For the record, the best marriages produce children out of a loving relationship between husband and wife.) Abortion denigrates the value of children and reproduction. No-fault divorce denigrates the value of children and reproduction. When children are no longer the basis for marriage, then marriage can be redefined in any way, based on the desires of politically powerful groups with unique desires.

      • Nick on October 29, 2010 at 10:24 am

        I think I see your point, which is that gay marriage does not support child-rearing and the protection of children, and that the institution of marriage exists to protect children. The point I’m making is that gay couples can, and do, raise children. There are all sorts of committed, monogamous gay couples who have children and would love to provide their children with the stability and recognition that marriage provides.

Leave a Comment