16 Sep, 2026 Here’s why our churches MUST speak up for marriage
We must continue to use our voice
This week we’ve been ‘boosting’ the first 10 of about 80 short videos created in the ’50 years married’ series (amongst other posts) – promoting marriage.
Context: This is a small subset of a wider collaborative effort to see local NZ churches becoming known nationwide again for their marriage, parenting and similar courses. (See some of those collaborating via MarriageWeek.org.nz)
The noted series of 1min interviews for social media use can be found here 50 Years Married and Loving it
>> We’re intriguingly getting attacked for it. Accusations relate to a prejudicial hatred of Christianity, accusations of discrimination, and the blaming of ‘the Church’ for pedophilia.
Fortunately, this is a small part of the audience – but the dynamic is worthy of mention, because those thinking to ‘speak up’ might be hindered by the fear of criticism.
Here is how we have responded – so the criticisms do not go unanswered.
(We are reminded that the freedoms of speech and religion are a case of ‘use it or lose it’.)
A criticism of churches for supporting marriages is strange:
A defense of the benefits of marriage shouldn’t need stating. The data shows significant benefits to the couple, huge benefits to the children, and wider benefit to society as a result of their stability and increased health and ability to both take care of themselves, and a future family, and to contribute.
Our shared cultural values of protection ironically came from the Church!
Christianity is the source of our charitable values as a culture – and also the source of our cultural opposition to pedophilia. Slavery was common among all our ancestors. The abuse of young slaves has been standard. Christianity is what changed this.
We stand with all accusers in stating that all abuse is wrong:
Regarding the ‘Royal Inquiry’ – firstly, the irony that our churches volunteered to be involved needs noting. We did this because we agree that all abuse is wrong, and we wanted it exposed.
Secondly, however, the the point isn’t actually at all that “churches abused”. The point is that churches cared – which is why they became targets for those who would abuse. Churches created places of care for children – which made them the places pedophiles would go.
To illustrate, blaming ‘the Church’ would be like blaming the State – which in our history then adopted Christian values and also started caring for children. Those desiring to do wrong then went to the State institutions also. The solution isn’t therefore to attack or demolish the State. The abuse happened because the locations they created became the targets for pedophiles and other abusers in the same way.
So what is the central issue? The abuse happened because SYSTEMS for a high level of protection – with awareness that by offering care you would attract and create space for abusers – didn’t exist, and didn’t exist anywhere. The Royal Inquiry was therefore about recognising the evil that happened, giving just and needed apology for a lack of systems and processes to protect, with the intent that we might all then CREATE NEW LEVELS OF SYSTEM AND PROCESS so our civilisation avoids this into the future.
The Inquiry was good – not bad, and will be a success in its outcomes!
A great irony and tragedy in the data (Where children are most vulnerable today):
Concurrently, the most dangerous place for a NZ child is in their home – which should be the safest place. In the home, a healthy marriage is the greatest protector of children.
For example, children are 9x more likely to be abused if the male in the house isn’t the biological father. This isn’t to pick on adoptive dads – as many are great. But the idea that the institution of marriage be esteemed in a healthy society shouldn’t even need stating – let alone defending.
Re awkward accusation of discrimination:
Concurrently also – this isn’t to imply a lack of care for singles or those choosing other moral paths – or judgement on those choosing other values, morality and lifestyles. I isn’t discrimination to disagree. It is possible to love all people also, even while disagreeing. To suggest the promotion of marriage means discrimination against others misses the point.
It would also be good for ALL to esteem marriage – no matter their persuasion. Every child wants a mum and dad who love each other. The data on the benefits of marriages to the couple, their children and a society are ‘off the charts’ (extremely good). All NZers should have the generosity of heart to see and agree on this – even while holding to the Christian value of loving all people in all circumstances, and supporting them as we can also.
There aren’t opposites.
- The needs are real
- Our churches uniquely have resources for courses readily at hand
- We have the ready volunteers (couples in churches for whom marriage and parenting is a ‘number one’ area of passion – who’d help if asked)
- United city-wide promotion of upcoming courses can bring positive profile to churches – and help people.
- (Any small amount of negativity expressed can be engaged with utilising the points noted above)
- It’s an opportunity!