Darryle Hershey's Page

Mr. Hershey:

We would like to feature your blog in the August Issue of BGI Connections. Your blogs are informative and very inspiring!!!!!!!! Can you email me a profile picture of yourself? This is the blog we will use.


Family MattersPosted by Darryle Hershey on June 18, 2009 at 7:30pm
View Darryle Hershey's blog
Recently I read an article dealing with how many of our black sisters are now looking for their "Barack." That evasive "prince charming." This is an issue that strikes at the "heart" of Family Matters. In today's world and church the majority of black children are born to "single mothers." A fact we can not ignore or deny. The marriage rate among African Americans is around forty percent. The divorce rate hovers above fifty percent nationally. Even approaching 75% among those that identify themselves as "Pentecostals." And we somehow believe all is well because we believe in "marriage." Many states have passed legislation defining "marriage". We have gone as far as creating "Covenant Marriages." Our Congress has even passed the "Defense of Marriage Act." And in spite of all of these efforts we find ourselves in this quandary. Thou we say we believe in "marriage" and yet we fail to stay "married."

Why??? What do we really believe? How do we define marriage? What is a family? Many will point to the "culture wars" that began in the 1960's as the reason for the demise of the "family." Others will blame the "sexual revolution" for the increase in out of "wedlock" births. While other's will point to the declining "morals" of our country. And still other's will focus on the downfall of "traditional marriage." However when we begin to peel away some of the "myths" we come to the "heart" of the matter.

Many of have been given this idea that "marriage" was instituted in the Garden of Eden. That God, himself "officiated" the ceremony with the Arch-Angels, Gabriel and Michael, as "witnesses." And while there are several problems with this theorem, I will only deal with the most obvious. An ancient times the "witnesses" served one primary purpose. Bear witness to the consummation of the marriage and collect the marital "bed sheets" proving the "state" of the bride. Obviously in dealing with Eve there would be no question of her "virginal" state. Furthermore, neither the "church" nor the "state" had an interest in "marriage" until the 15th century A.D. when a catholic priest determined he could charge in honorarium for his attendance at "weddings" as the "chief guest." And while the Catholic church considers marriage to be one of the "Seven Sacraments," it is the only one administered by the laity. Meanwhile the Protestant church does not elevate it to that level recognizing only two ordinances - Baptism and The Lord's Supper. As for the "State," it became a new revenue stream in exchange for administering what was previously a civil contract (more on this later) between individuals. Strangely enough the "church" and the "state" had the same motive for getting involved with marriage. MONEY.

When we look at marriage through the lens of Jewish society, we find there were actually two forms of marriage recognized. The wife - one that had a marriage contract, and the concubine - one who did not have a marriage contract. The purpose of the marriage contract - to predetermine the price of the "dowry" and to list everything the "wife" arrived with should she fall out of her husband's favor and be given a "writ of divorce." Offspring from both relationships were recognized as "legitimate" children. The only children that were considered "illegitimate" were those offspring from an adulterous liaison. A relationship between a "married woman" and a man other than her husband. In the old testament times a man could only commit adultery with a "married woman" (take a look at the test for adultery in Numbers chapter 15.) Even then the woman typically would have to admit her indiscretion. Because there was a 15 month window were the child was "presumed" to be the offspring of her husband.

What was "traditional" marriage? The relationship was based on the "owner" (husband) and the "owned" (wife.) The main reason why a son was essential to a marriage. The wealth of the father passed down to the sons. Wives (traditionally) had no property rights which was why it was necessary for women from respectable families to have "marriage contracts." Women were typically dependent upon a male (father, husband, brother, or son) for their welfare. This was generally true until the 20th century ( with the exception of slavery.) "Marriages" were contracted between families generally for "political" and "business" reasons. "Love" was not an "overriding consideration" for marriage until the 1960's. When the "church" had a revelation that "marriage" should be based love.

Interestingly, after the industrialization of our nation and two world wars when women began to work outside of the house in large numbers, women were less dependent on men for financial support. Then came the advent of the welfare state. Where women were forced to get men out of their house in order to receive aide from the state. Incidentally, at the same time this was taking place (particularly with the black family) black men (in mass) were being steered into lower paying jobs and/or the prison system. Then as we stepped in to the 90's, we saw the era of "personal responsibility." We proudly announced the end of the "welfare queens." We brought in DNA testing and child support enforcement. We unleashed a torrent of private collection agencies and law enforcement to ensure that men "supported" the children they sired. The only problem the "law of unintended consequences."

We set in motion what has become a fundamental shift in our families. Polyandry. Women having multiple father's for their children. We have now taken our family norm from what was generally monogamous relationships based on financial support. To currently polygyny and polyandry relationships. While polygyny has been fairly common in most societies polyandry is much rarer. I know some are saying I am errant in my understanding of polygamy because it typically involves one person having multiple spouses at the same time. However, if we look back and understand "marriage" and it's two forms, we clearly see "marriage" was based on "the two becoming one." Not necessarily the "marriage contract." Which we currently equate to a "marriage license." to be continued..... Peace be unto you. The Net Elder