# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nae.org/god-defined-marriage/#:~:text=As%20first%20described%20in%20Genesis,the%20stewardship%20of%20the%20earth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
God designed marriage for humanity. As first described in Genesis and later affirmed by Jesus, marriage is a God-ordained, covenant relationship between a man and a woman. This lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship brings children into the world and thus sustains the stewardship of the earth. Biblical marriage - marked by faithfulness, sacrificial love and joy - displays the relationship between God and his people.[1]

While commentators, politicians and judges may revise their understanding of marriage in response to shifting societal trends, followers of Jesus should embrace his clear vision of marriage found in Matthew 19:4-6:

"Haven't you read," Jesus replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

Nothing in the Supreme Court's Obergefell v. Hodges opinion changes the truth about marriage. What has changed is the legal definition of marriage, which is now at variance with orthodox biblical faith as it has been affirmed across the centuries and as it is embraced today by nearly two billion Christians in every nation on earth.

In its role as a moral teacher, the law now misleads Americans about the true nature of marriage. Evangelicals and other followers of the Bible have a heightened opportunity to demonstrate the attractiveness of loving Christian marriages and families. Evangelicals should renew their commitment to the sacrificial love and covenantal faithfulness to which Jesus calls all husbands and wives.

As witnesses to the truth, evangelicals should be gracious and compassionate to those who do not share their views on marriage. Those who continue to embrace biblical teaching on marriage will increasingly appeal to the First Amendment protection not just for abstract belief, but for the practice of their faith. The National Association of Evangelicals calls on Congress to enact laws, on the president to implement policies, and on the courts to render judgments that uphold the freedom and human rights of all Americans.

[1] Theology of Sex (Washington, DC: National Association of Evangelicals, 2012), 10.
Download a PDF version of this statement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
God Defined Marriage - National Association of Evangelicals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
God designed marriage for humanity. As first described in Genesis and later affirmed by Jesus, marriage is a God-ordained, covenant relationship between a man and a woman. This lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship brings children into the world and thus sustains the stewardship of the earth.

# data[].attributes.body
Grande, Reyna. A Dream Called Home. Washington Square Press, 2018.

# data[].attributes.headline
Intro- Reyna Grande A Dream Called Home. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Intro- Reyna Grande A Dream Called Home. 

# data[].attributes.body
Reyna Grande is an example of someone who comes from a family that does not have a biblical worldview of a family, she develops emotional and psychological insecurities, becomes a victim of abuse, and find herself with a broken family of her own.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/authority-inerrancy-scripture/

This source speaks to why the bible is so important; sola scriputura.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"The trustworthiness of the Scriptures lies at the foundation of trust in the Christian system of doctrine, and is therefore fundamental to the Christian hope and life." These words from Benjamin B. Warfield highlight just how important the doctrine of inerrancy is for the church. Abandon it, and the entire Christian system of doctrine now rests on a shaky foundation.

That is because without it, our assurance in Scripture's full truthfulness and total trustworthiness is thrown into question. Doubt naturally follows for the preacher of God's Word: "How can I know whether the passage I am preaching is reliable?" Much is at stake, then, with inerrancy. Faith and practice readily depend on whether we can trust God's Word and whether it is God's Word at all or in its entirety.

The God of Truth

As hinted at already, it is appropriate to associate inerrancy with God himself. Inerrancy is, after all, a corollary of inspiration. It is because Scripture is breathed-out by God (2 Tim. 3:16) that it is also truthful in all it affirms. The God who has breathed out his Word has done so in a way that is truthful; what else would we expect from a triune God who is truth itself (John 1:18; 8:40; 14:6; 17:3, 17; 18:37; 1 John 4:6)?

Assumed in such a statement is the belief that our doctrine of Scripture should be grounded in our doctrine of God. If God is Scripture's author, then we should not divorce the character of the divine author from the character of his divine speech. After all, this is God's Word we are describing; Scripture has many human authors, but it ultimately originates from one divine author. While God and the text are distinct, nevertheless, the text is his speech act; it should not surprise us that it reflects his character. Communicable attributes characterize his communicable speech, and truthfulness is one of them. As the God of truth and the God who is truth, he speaks a word of truth. The truthfulness of the text reflects the truthfulness of its divine author. Hence the psalmist could say that the God whose way is "perfect" communicates a word that always "proves true" and, for that reason, is a comfort to those who trust in it for their salvation (119:96; cf. 119:160).

The truthfulness of the text reflects the truthfulness of its divine author.

"But wait, isn't Scripture written by human hands? We all know humans are fallible creatures," one might object. It is true that humans are fallible. And apart from the Spirit's superintendence, any human author would be fallible. But since it is the Spirit of God-also called the Spirit of truth (John 15:26)-that carries along these human authors (2 Peter 1:21), what they say is what God says, and no human error is mixed in with it. Surely this is not beyond God's omnipotent abilities. If we, as Christians, believe the Son of God himself can become incarnate yet without sin in order to communicate a saving word to us as the Word (John 1:1, 14), then carrying along the biblical authors so that they speak truthfully is a small thing by comparison.

Jesus' View of the Scriptures

Moreover, when we look at how Jesus and his disciples treat the Old Testament Scriptures, it is always with utter trust and reverence, never with suspicion towards its reliability. Even Jesus's Jewish opponents did the same. While Jesus and the Jews had strong disagreements over how the OT was to be interpreted and whether Jesus is who he says he is, never-not once-do they disagree as to whether the text interpreted is trustworthy. Apart from such a presupposition, their debates never would have happened in the first place.

Jesus brings a unique credibility to the issue as well; he is, after all, the Son of God himself. Naturally, our view of the Scriptures should be the same as Jesus's view of the Scriptures. Beyond assuming trust in Scripture, both in its details and as a whole, the inerrancy of Scripture shines brightest when Jesus expresses his belief that God's covenant promises in the Scriptures have come true in his own life, death, and resurrection. In Jesus Christ, God's inscripturated word has proven true. God's saving promises have come to fruition in the Word, his own Son.

We can conclude, then, that the gospel itself is proof that not one word of God has failed. The truthfulness of God's Word, along with its lifegiving power, has been manifested in he who is the way and the truth and the life (John 14:6). God is faithful; all his promises find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ. What greater affirmation of scriptural inerrancy could there be?

The gospel itself is proof that not one word of God has failed.

Clarifying Inerrancy

That said, we must qualify what inerrancy does and does not mean. Paul Feinberg defines inerrancy as follows: "When all the facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences." If this definition labors to define what inerrancy does and does not mean, that is because inerrancy is one of the most misunderstood and caricatured attributes of Scripture by its critics. Note several components of this definitions.

To begin with, inerrancy applies to the original autographs. That is an important qualification because sometimes critics see mistakes in copies and assume the Bible is full of errors. But when we say Scripture is inerrant, we have in mind that original text breathed out by God through the human authors (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21). The product of inspiration is an inerrant text of Scripture. So far as it has been faithfully copied, translated, and passed down, it is inerrant in its copies. (And it should be noted that the copies we possess are very accurate.)

Moreover, inerrancy means Scripture is "wholly true" in all that it affirms. Or as Kevin Vanhoozer says, "To say that Scripture is inerrant is to confess faith that the authors speak the truth in all things they affirm (when they make affirmations)." In whatever Scripture asserts and affirms, it speaks truthfully and in a trustworthy manner. To say it is "wholly" true means we should not limit inerrancy to Scripture's main doctrinal message. We never see the biblical authors place such a limitation on their writings. Instead, they believe God speaks truly through them in whatever they affirm. So, inerrancy applies to all areas, including its ethical instruction, to name just one example. Just as inspiration is both verbal and plenary, so too is inerrancy.

In whatever Scripture asserts and affirms, it speaks truthfully and in a trustworthy manner.

Inerrancy and Authority

Affirming inerrancy today can be tricky. There are some, for example, who affirm Scripture's inspiration but reject its inerrancy. This limited inerrancy view sounds, at first glance, evangelical: "I believe Scripture is true in its message of faith." But on further investigation, this position denies Scripture is true in all that it asserts. Yes, it is true in its gospel message, but beyond that it may err in its specifics. Ironically, this view claims it can still herald sola scriptura, as if Scripture is still the final authority.

The problem is, this view cannot claim Scripture is its final inerrant authority, which is what the church has always assumed in proclaiming sola scriptura. Pay attention to this key difference between a full inerrancy view and the limited inerrancy view. The full inerrancy view says,

"All Scripture is our inerrant authority."

Not so with the limited view, which says instead,

"Only when Scripture addresses matters of faith is it our inerrant authority."

Notice, the limited inerrancy view can only (consistently) claim sola scriptura when Scripture puts forward its main message. At other times, it is not inerrant and cannot, therefore, been the final authority. This is not what the Reformers meant by sola scriptura. When Luther protested Rome and took his stand on the authority of Scripture at a Diet like Worms, it was inerrancy (among other things) that distinguished his cause. Luther made the bold claim that while popes and councils err, Scripture does not. It is because Scripture alone is inspired by God that it is also inerrant, sufficient, and the Christian's final authority.

All that to say, evangelicals today must guard themselves from those who would claim the Bible as their authority but turn around and deny its truthfulness either in part or in whole.

Further Reading

Craig Carter, Video interview: Does our doctrine of God affect our doctrine of scripture?

Guy Waters, Video interview: What does inerrancy tell us about the character of God?

Matthew Barrett, God's Word Alone: The Authority of Scripture. See an author interview here and here.

Matthew Barrett, Ten videos on the doctrine of Scripture.

Matthew Barrett, Twenty-one lectures based on God's Word Alone.

J. I. Packer, "Fundamentalism" and the Word of God: Some Evangelical Principles

John Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal

Peter Lillback and Richard Gaffin Jr., eds., Thy Word Is Still Truth: Essential Writings on the Doctrine of Scripture from the Reformation to Today

Peter Williams, Video interview: Why is divine authorial intent so important for biblical interpretation?

R. C. Sproul, Video interview: Inerrancy and your Church

"The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy," in Norman Geisler, ed., . For a brief historical review, see here.

This essay is part of the Concise Theology series. All views expressed in this essay are those of the author. This essay is freely available under Creative Commons License with Attribution-ShareAlike, allowing users to share it in other mediums/formats and adapt/translate the content as long as an attribution link, indication of changes, and the same Creative Commons License applies to that material. If you are interested in translating our content or are interested in joining our community of translators, please reach out to us.

This work is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Authority and Inerrancy of Scripture - The Gospel Coalition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Inerrancy: The God-breathed Scriptures are true in all things they assert in the original autographs and function with the authority of God's own words.

# data[].attributes.body
This source teaches on how to debate and give a defense to the Bible.

Craig, William Lane. On Guard. Colorado Springs: David C Cook, 2010

# data[].attributes.body
-Cloud, Henry and Townsend, John. Boundaries. Zondervan, 2017.

-Grande, Reyna. A Dream Called Home. Washington Square Press, 2018.

-Joyce, Alexa N. “High-Conflict Divorce: A Form of Child Neglect.” Family Court Review, vol. 54, no. 4, 2016, pp. 642–56, https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12249.

-Laing, John D., and Stefana Dan Laing. “‘TO MARRY IN CHRIST’: A THEOLOGICAL AND ETHICAL APPRAISAL OF JOHN CHRYSOSTOM ON MARRIAGE.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, vol. 63, no. 1, 2020, pp. 141–59.

-Siewers, Alfred Kentigern. "Traditional Christian marriage as an expression of social justice: identity and society in the writings of Florensky and Bulgakov." Journal of Markets & Morality, vol. 16, no. 2, fall 2013, pp. 569+. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A369062467/AONE?u=bcgvdbl_main&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=ffc7963b. Accessed 22 June 2023.

-Van Leeuwen, Mary Stewart. "Deconstructing the culture of divorce." The Christian Century, vol. 114, no. 22, 30 July 1997, pp. 690+. Gale OneFile: Religion and Philosophy, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A19677249/PPRP?u=bcgvdbl_main&sid=bookmark-PPRP&xid=e1c8320a. Accessed 27 June 2023

-Barrett, Matthew. The Authority and Inerrancy of Scripture. The Gospel Coalition. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/authority-inerrancy-scripture/
Accessed 29 June 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"The trustworthiness of the Scriptures lies at the foundation of trust in the Christian system of doctrine, and is therefore fundamental to the Christian hope and life." These words from Benjamin B. Warfield highlight just how important the doctrine of inerrancy is for the church. Abandon it, and the entire Christian system of doctrine now rests on a shaky foundation.

That is because without it, our assurance in Scripture's full truthfulness and total trustworthiness is thrown into question. Doubt naturally follows for the preacher of God's Word: "How can I know whether the passage I am preaching is reliable?" Much is at stake, then, with inerrancy. Faith and practice readily depend on whether we can trust God's Word and whether it is God's Word at all or in its entirety.

The God of Truth

As hinted at already, it is appropriate to associate inerrancy with God himself. Inerrancy is, after all, a corollary of inspiration. It is because Scripture is breathed-out by God (2 Tim. 3:16) that it is also truthful in all it affirms. The God who has breathed out his Word has done so in a way that is truthful; what else would we expect from a triune God who is truth itself (John 1:18; 8:40; 14:6; 17:3, 17; 18:37; 1 John 4:6)?

Assumed in such a statement is the belief that our doctrine of Scripture should be grounded in our doctrine of God. If God is Scripture's author, then we should not divorce the character of the divine author from the character of his divine speech. After all, this is God's Word we are describing; Scripture has many human authors, but it ultimately originates from one divine author. While God and the text are distinct, nevertheless, the text is his speech act; it should not surprise us that it reflects his character. Communicable attributes characterize his communicable speech, and truthfulness is one of them. As the God of truth and the God who is truth, he speaks a word of truth. The truthfulness of the text reflects the truthfulness of its divine author. Hence the psalmist could say that the God whose way is "perfect" communicates a word that always "proves true" and, for that reason, is a comfort to those who trust in it for their salvation (119:96; cf. 119:160).

The truthfulness of the text reflects the truthfulness of its divine author.

"But wait, isn't Scripture written by human hands? We all know humans are fallible creatures," one might object. It is true that humans are fallible. And apart from the Spirit's superintendence, any human author would be fallible. But since it is the Spirit of God-also called the Spirit of truth (John 15:26)-that carries along these human authors (2 Peter 1:21), what they say is what God says, and no human error is mixed in with it. Surely this is not beyond God's omnipotent abilities. If we, as Christians, believe the Son of God himself can become incarnate yet without sin in order to communicate a saving word to us as the Word (John 1:1, 14), then carrying along the biblical authors so that they speak truthfully is a small thing by comparison.

Jesus' View of the Scriptures

Moreover, when we look at how Jesus and his disciples treat the Old Testament Scriptures, it is always with utter trust and reverence, never with suspicion towards its reliability. Even Jesus's Jewish opponents did the same. While Jesus and the Jews had strong disagreements over how the OT was to be interpreted and whether Jesus is who he says he is, never-not once-do they disagree as to whether the text interpreted is trustworthy. Apart from such a presupposition, their debates never would have happened in the first place.

Jesus brings a unique credibility to the issue as well; he is, after all, the Son of God himself. Naturally, our view of the Scriptures should be the same as Jesus's view of the Scriptures. Beyond assuming trust in Scripture, both in its details and as a whole, the inerrancy of Scripture shines brightest when Jesus expresses his belief that God's covenant promises in the Scriptures have come true in his own life, death, and resurrection. In Jesus Christ, God's inscripturated word has proven true. God's saving promises have come to fruition in the Word, his own Son.

We can conclude, then, that the gospel itself is proof that not one word of God has failed. The truthfulness of God's Word, along with its lifegiving power, has been manifested in he who is the way and the truth and the life (John 14:6). God is faithful; all his promises find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ. What greater affirmation of scriptural inerrancy could there be?

The gospel itself is proof that not one word of God has failed.

Clarifying Inerrancy

That said, we must qualify what inerrancy does and does not mean. Paul Feinberg defines inerrancy as follows: "When all the facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences." If this definition labors to define what inerrancy does and does not mean, that is because inerrancy is one of the most misunderstood and caricatured attributes of Scripture by its critics. Note several components of this definitions.

To begin with, inerrancy applies to the original autographs. That is an important qualification because sometimes critics see mistakes in copies and assume the Bible is full of errors. But when we say Scripture is inerrant, we have in mind that original text breathed out by God through the human authors (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21). The product of inspiration is an inerrant text of Scripture. So far as it has been faithfully copied, translated, and passed down, it is inerrant in its copies. (And it should be noted that the copies we possess are very accurate.)

Moreover, inerrancy means Scripture is "wholly true" in all that it affirms. Or as Kevin Vanhoozer says, "To say that Scripture is inerrant is to confess faith that the authors speak the truth in all things they affirm (when they make affirmations)." In whatever Scripture asserts and affirms, it speaks truthfully and in a trustworthy manner. To say it is "wholly" true means we should not limit inerrancy to Scripture's main doctrinal message. We never see the biblical authors place such a limitation on their writings. Instead, they believe God speaks truly through them in whatever they affirm. So, inerrancy applies to all areas, including its ethical instruction, to name just one example. Just as inspiration is both verbal and plenary, so too is inerrancy.

In whatever Scripture asserts and affirms, it speaks truthfully and in a trustworthy manner.

Inerrancy and Authority

Affirming inerrancy today can be tricky. There are some, for example, who affirm Scripture's inspiration but reject its inerrancy. This limited inerrancy view sounds, at first glance, evangelical: "I believe Scripture is true in its message of faith." But on further investigation, this position denies Scripture is true in all that it asserts. Yes, it is true in its gospel message, but beyond that it may err in its specifics. Ironically, this view claims it can still herald sola scriptura, as if Scripture is still the final authority.

The problem is, this view cannot claim Scripture is its final inerrant authority, which is what the church has always assumed in proclaiming sola scriptura. Pay attention to this key difference between a full inerrancy view and the limited inerrancy view. The full inerrancy view says,

"All Scripture is our inerrant authority."

Not so with the limited view, which says instead,

"Only when Scripture addresses matters of faith is it our inerrant authority."

Notice, the limited inerrancy view can only (consistently) claim sola scriptura when Scripture puts forward its main message. At other times, it is not inerrant and cannot, therefore, been the final authority. This is not what the Reformers meant by sola scriptura. When Luther protested Rome and took his stand on the authority of Scripture at a Diet like Worms, it was inerrancy (among other things) that distinguished his cause. Luther made the bold claim that while popes and councils err, Scripture does not. It is because Scripture alone is inspired by God that it is also inerrant, sufficient, and the Christian's final authority.

All that to say, evangelicals today must guard themselves from those who would claim the Bible as their authority but turn around and deny its truthfulness either in part or in whole.

Further Reading

Craig Carter, Video interview: Does our doctrine of God affect our doctrine of scripture?

Guy Waters, Video interview: What does inerrancy tell us about the character of God?

Matthew Barrett, God's Word Alone: The Authority of Scripture. See an author interview here and here.

Matthew Barrett, Ten videos on the doctrine of Scripture.

Matthew Barrett, Twenty-one lectures based on God's Word Alone.

J. I. Packer, "Fundamentalism" and the Word of God: Some Evangelical Principles

John Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal

Peter Lillback and Richard Gaffin Jr., eds., Thy Word Is Still Truth: Essential Writings on the Doctrine of Scripture from the Reformation to Today

Peter Williams, Video interview: Why is divine authorial intent so important for biblical interpretation?

R. C. Sproul, Video interview: Inerrancy and your Church

"The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy," in Norman Geisler, ed., . For a brief historical review, see here.

This essay is part of the Concise Theology series. All views expressed in this essay are those of the author. This essay is freely available under Creative Commons License with Attribution-ShareAlike, allowing users to share it in other mediums/formats and adapt/translate the content as long as an attribution link, indication of changes, and the same Creative Commons License applies to that material. If you are interested in translating our content or are interested in joining our community of translators, please reach out to us.

This work is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Authority and Inerrancy of Scripture - The Gospel Coalition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Inerrancy: The God-breathed Scriptures are true in all things they assert in the original autographs and function with the authority of God's own words.

# data[].attributes.body
The Bible gives reference on how to live a lifestyle from a Christian Worldview.

Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

# data[].attributes.body
This book talks about insecurities and how they are developed through lack of boundaries.

Cloud, Henry and Townsend, John. Boundaries. Zondervan, 2017.

# data[].attributes.body
Van Leeuwen, Mary Stewart. "Deconstructing the culture of divorce." The Christian Century, vol. 114, no. 22, 30 July 1997, pp. 690+. Gale OneFile: Religion and Philosophy, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A19677249/PPRP?u=bcgvdbl_main&sid=bookmark-PPRP&xid=e1c8320a. Accessed 27 June 2023

# data[].attributes.body
This source talks about the purpose of marriage from a biblical worldview.

"TO MARRY IN CHRIST": A THEOLOGICAL AND ETHICAL APPRAISAL OF JOHN CHRYSOSTOM ON MARRIAGE

Laing, John D ; Laing, Stefana Dan

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 2020, Vol.63 (1), p.141-159

# data[].attributes.headline
Counterargument #2- The bible is not relevant in today's world, so I don't have to follow what it says. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Counterargument #2- The bible is not relevant in today's world, so I don't have to follow what it says. 

# data[].attributes.body
The Bible is the written word of God. If we believe that Jesus died, then rose again, then we should believe everything the Bible says. There is not a problem with what the Bible says, the problem comes with our hermeneutics. We have to learn how to read the Bible correctly to be able to apply it to our lives.

# data[].attributes.body
This source answers the question What is a marraige? It gives references of marriage in a biblical worldview and a secular worldview.

Traditional Christian marriage as an expression of social justice: identity and society in the writings of Florensky and Bulgakov

Siewers, Alfred Kentigern

The journal of markets & morality, 2013, Vol.16 (2), p.569

# data[].attributes.body
This source discuses neglect in children stemming from a divorce.

High-Conflict Divorce: A form of Child Neglect

Joyce, Alexa N.

Family court review, 2016, Vol.54 (4), p.642-656

# data[].attributes.headline
Counterargument #1: Nonbiblical definition of a family

# data[].attributes.subject
Counterargument #1: Nonbiblical definition of a family

# data[].attributes.body
Our culture is trying to come against the tradition of what the Bible says is a family. Same-Sex marriages, blended families-due to divorce & remarrying with kids from previous families, single women who do in-vito, single parents who divorce, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
When a child grows up in a broken family and does not have a biblical model of a family, that child tends to grow up to repeat the same pattern that they learned as a child. It is all that they know, so they think it is ok and don't know to break the cycle.

# data[].attributes.headline
Main Point #1- Develop emotional and psychological insecurities

# data[].attributes.subject
Main Point #1- Develop emotional and psychological insecurities

# data[].attributes.body
Growing up in a broken family leaves a child with a longing for a whole family. This is very evident in Reyna's life. ( DCH Quote- page 5)

# data[].attributes.body
Victims of abuse- When children are raised in broken families, they become subject to abuse or neglect, which intentional or unintentional. A single parent could have to work and a child is left with a babysitter, which could create an unsafe enviornment where a child could get abuse, without the parent being aware. An alcoholic parent can be verbally and physically abusive when drunk to a child.

# data[].attributes.headline
Body Paragraph #1 Biblical definition of Family

# data[].attributes.subject
Body Paragraph #1 Biblical definition of Family

# data[].attributes.body
A biblical definition of a family would be a virgin man and a virgin woman coming together as one to be married. Children should only be produced in a traditional Christian marriage.

# data[].attributes.body
Not having a Biblical worldview often cause children to come from broken families which they then develop emotional and psychological insecurities, become victims of abuse, and find themselves in a broken family of their own.