Questions

Your questions are welcome and will be answered by elders of the United Church of God, an International Association. We reserve the right to be selective about questions and edit them for clarity or space.

Last Modified: February 4, 2008

Q. What is God’s point of view on the ever growing popularity of “prenuptial agreements” and what advice does the ministry provide regarding this
subject to couples seeking premarital counseling? Since our singles group is comprised of a large number of divorced individuals it is only natural – to
a point – that one might be a little “gun shy” about marrying again. I say “to a point” in that I am a believer in trying again, but not before giving ample
time to the healing process and introspection. In this way we can avoid marrying on the rebound. That being said, many of us have been through very
difficult and costly divorces which may have included loss of income, loss of children, loss of our homes, and loss of possessions. So, in one sense, it
would seem like the wisest course of action to sign a prenuptial agreement in order to protect one’s assets brought into a second marriage. However,
in doing so, does this not set a couple up for failure from the very beginning with trust issues that this type of legal document seems to suggest?
A. You bring up some very interesting points to consider about remarriage. Those who have gone through a divorce know well the difficulties that can be involved. Your specific question is about prenuptial agreements, though, and it probably goes without saying that the Bible doesn’t focus on
“prenuptial agreements”. God’s intent and instruction about family from the beginning has been to uphold the sanctity of marriage as shown by Christ’s words in Matthew 19:4-6. It is therefore understandable that God doesn’t give specifics about how to structure a remarriage that might occur in the case of divorce, nor about prenuptials.

Since the Bible doesn’t specifically address the question, it would be presumptuous for any human to say that signing or not signing such an agreement would be a sin. The question indicates that signing a prenuptial has the potential to set the stage of almost “expecting” some kind of failure in the marriage. That might be the case—particularly if a prenuptial only covers divorce in specifying the disposition of property held by one or both parties before marriage. In common usage that’s what people are often referring to when they talk about “prenups”. However it should be pointed out that prenuptials can cover financial and property arrangements for a couple not only in the event of divorce, but also in the event of death—or even during the marriage. We might also note that when a couple establishes those same details after getting married we tend to think of it as “estate
planning”—something that is generally viewed as prudent.

Understanding how broad these agreements can be helps point out that prenuptials are not inherently evil. As is pointed out in the question, the intent and reasons for such an agreement (which are matters of the heart and emotions) would be important for a Christian to understand in trying to decide whether or not to sign one. If either party enters the marriage with an expectation of failure and desires a prenuptial solely to cover a potential divorce, then that marriage could be in trouble before it even begins. Therefore, getting some counsel to understand the intent and motives of both parties would seem most appropriate in trying to decide whether or not to sign such a document.

Q. The majority of questions I read are geared toward finding mates. I enjoy reading the responses and find them helpful. I pray for the right mate all the time. But what about the gift of being single; please elaborate on what Paul was speaking about when he mentioned this topic.
A. You make a good point. Yes, the Bible does speak of the gift of being single, and does mention certain advantages to the unmarried state.

In 1 Corinthians 7, the apostle Paul discusses the subject of the married versus the unmarried life. His own preference is clearly expressed in verses 8 and 9: based apparently on his own experience in serving God, he thought that to be unmarried was preferable, though he agreed that to marry was not sin.

Verse 25 through 28 express the thought that in a time of severe persecution, it is better to be responsible for oneself only. The key phrase here is "because of the present distress," which indicates Paul was writing at a time of persecution, during which the unmarried state would be easier for Christians. In this respect, Paul's words echo those of Jesus Christ, in the Olivet prophecy, where he warned that life would be very difficult for "those who are pregnant and… those who are nursing babies" in the last days (Matthew 24:18). There will be times when it is better not to have babies, because of persecution against God's people.

1 Corinthians 7:32-35 mentions some of the advantages of singleness: "He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord - how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares for the things of the world - how he may please his wife." An unmarried person naturally has extra time for prayer, study of the Scriptures, meditation, fasting, and service in the Church, than a married person.

However, verses 36 to 39 include a caveat that must be kept in mind: Paul told the single Corinthian brethren to marry if they felt an urgent need to do so. It's better to be married than to endure frustration and restlessness. Though Paul apparently favored the single state, which had allowed him great freedom in serving God and Jesus Christ, he granted that many would prefer marriage, and not be able to endure being alone.

Paul's advice is summed up in verse 38: "So he who gives her [his girlfriend] in marriage does well, but he who does not give her in marriage does better."

Q. Would it be appropriate for a Christian to vote in a political election?
A. It has long been the teaching of the Church that members should not be involved in politics. In Philippians 3:20 we're told our citizenship (most modern translations-though several say "homeland") is in heaven. This verse has consistently been viewed as a warning against entangling ourselves in the "affairs of this world" to paraphrase 2 Timothy 2:4. In the early part of the last century this was also seen as a reason to not get involved in voting. However, when there began to be a concentration of members in one location, it was realized that the only way to make a person's opinion know on local community issues in this country is through voting, and some felt it did not violate the principle stated above to express an opinion on local issues.
Others have pointed to several examples in the Bible where opinions were expressed via different means. In the Old Testament the Urim and Thumin were used. In the wilderness after leaving Egypt, Moses told the children of Israel to select men whom he would appoint as rulers over them, so they had to use some method of selecting these men. In the New Testament, when deacons were needed ot care for the widows, the apostles asked the congregation to select men with certain characteristics that the apostles would then appoint to that position. In Acts 15, all of the elders came together to express opinions and came to an agreement on the subject of circumcision of Gentiles whom God was calling. So within the people of God, the Bible shows the use of means of expressing opinions about certain things. Voting (or balloting) is the simply the expressing of one's opinion in decision-making.
There is a significant difference between voting and what is commonly called "politics"-the unpleasant and ungodly wrangling over issues, along with vying for personal advancement. Clearly, Christians must distance themselves from all negative and carnal "politics" of this nature (1 Timothy 6:4-5; 1 Peter 2:11-12). In the past the act of voting in a political election has been including in the description of "politics". However, some feel this is an incorrect inclusion and the Council of Elders in the United Church of God has stated that it is looking into the subject.

Q. What is the United Church of God's policy toward interracial marriage?
A. There is no definitive "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not" command about interracial marriage. Scriptures that forbade marriage outside of the tribes of Israel dealt with avoiding mixing religions, not races. However, the scriptures are replete with examples of people seeking a spouse from a common ethnic, cultural and religious background. It is that example that provides us with guidance in today's world.
Without doubt, a difference in ethnic backgrounds is a significant difference not to be minimized or brushed aside. In the flush of romance, it may be easy for couples to gloss over significant differences that could potentially have a serious effect on a marriage and family relationship.
Family opinions, the challenges of children born to an interracial marriage, community pressures and cultural differences all need to be carefully and maturely weighed by individuals even before they begin to date-certainly before they consider marriage.
Given these weighty factors, the UCGIA advises that it is not wise for people to marry across racial lines. Of course, the final decision belongs to the couple involved-and somewhat to their extended families, whose opinions should be fully considered.
The UCGIA handles the topic of interracial marriage by publicly teaching the principles that make for a sound marriage. We also provide premarital counseling for our members, at which time these principles would also be emphasized to assist the couple in making a wise decision.

Q. Would you please elaborate on what the "Prepare and Enrich" program is all
about, how it would benefit singles, and who administers it?
A. Prepare/Enrich is a series of relationship inventory tools created by David H. Olson, Ph.D. and his colleagues in the late 1970's. The divorce rate in the United States was skyrocketing at that time and in 1981, of the one million marriages that ended in divorce, the average length of time those marriages lasted was less than six years--and nearly 20% lasted less than two years. In the overview given in the front of their counselor's manual, they state that the impetus for developing these tools was the lack of such items to help counselors and clergy with a systematic and objective assessment of personal and relationship issues for couples.
There are three instruments they offer. Prepare is designed as a pre marriage counseling tool. There are 165 questions which each person is asked to respond to in private. The answer sheets are sent to Dr. Olson's office in MN and analyzed for a scoring fee of $30. They results are sent back to the trained counselor/minister who then discusses the results with the individuals. The scoring is designed to identify both relationship strengths as well as growth areas and offers an objective way to raise
issues on which the individuals hold divergent views or ideas. The areas addressed are marriage expectations, personality issues, communication, conflict resolution, financial management, leisure activities, sexual expectation, children and parenting, family and friends, role relationships, and spiritual beliefs. While the instrument is not billed as an indicator of success or failure in marriage, it can be very useful in helping a potential marriage couple understand themselves and each other.
The second instrument, Prepare-MC, is designed for couples who are counseling for marriage where at least one partner has been married before or has at least one child. The third instrument is called Enrich and is designed to help couples who are currently married. The areas addressed are the same as with Prepare.
All three items were updated in the 2000 and each trained counselor/clergy member was required to take a refresher class at that time to be able to administer the updated instruments. Most pastors in the United Church of God are licensed to administer Prepare/Enrich, though some may have their own counseling tools that they prefer to use. Whatever tool is used, pre marriage counseling cannot be encouraged too much, since God places such a high value on preserving marriages. In Luke 14:28 Christ asked who would ever be so unwise as to build a tower without first counting the cost to be sure they would be able to complete it. In the same way, it would be terribly foolish to rush into a marriage without spending a large amount of time doing all you can to make sure the foundation is strong and that the relationship will endure.

Q. What is the approach to fellowship by brethren in other groups and this web site? Just curious.
A. The United Church of God does not claim to be the exclusive fellowship of Christians. Our Fundamental Beliefs state that we believe the "Church is that body of believers who have received, and are being led by, the Holy Spirit. The true Church of God is a spiritual organism." The attendance policy of UCG church regarding services and events is that anyone is welcome to join us as long as they meet with us in peace. Therefore, we do not restrict access to the UCG Singles Web site, nor do we restrict who can register on the site. We trust that those who visit the site will do so because of an honest interest in the efforts of United.

Q. Is it true that Adam means dark or rusty earth? And that the word for Man was originally Ish, translated as spiritbeing. That God created Man (spiritbeing) and formed Humas (dirt) and breathed Ish into Humas, thereby, joining the flesh and the spirit? And if so, if the colour of the dirt used was specified as a dark one, and if God was literal in his naming, that Adam was a dark man in fact, not just supposition? As one man put it when you blend all of the colours into one, you get black, and the symbolism in this is as you seperate out each colour you would have all nations in one man. We are all one, indirectly.
A. The usual word for "man" in the early chapters of Genesis is 'adam, which is also the name of the first man. Some feel it may be related to 'adamah, meaning 'ground' (see Genesis 2:7). The meaning of the term 'adam is related to "red" rather than brown or black. See, in this respect, Genesis 25:25, where Esau is described as being red; the Hebrew uses an adjectival form related to the noun 'adam. See also 1 Samuel 17:42, where the boy David is described as being 'ruddy,' that is probably a pinkish or light red color.
The word translated "man" in Genesis 1:23, 4:1 and 6:9 is iysh, meaning simply man, husband, adult male person. "Spirit being" isn't a correct translation for this word.
The word translated "dust" or "dirt" seems to refer more to the consistency of the material rather than the color. An example of this would be Deuteronomy 9:21, where this word is used to refer to gold dust, though most uses of this word refer to the dust of the ground.
So, as you can see, it may be pushing it a bit too far to suggest that Adam was black- or brown-skinned. The Bible doesn't really say what he looked like from a racial point of view, but the evidence points more to him having probably a dark reddy skin, rather than white, black, or brown.