About Christocentric Press

Chris⋅to⋅cen⋅tric

[kris-tuh-sen-trik] – adjective
having as the theological focal point the teachings and practices of Jesus Christ.

That is the focus of this website – a christocentric point of view!  Not an afrocentric, eurocentric or worldy-centric viewpoint but of Christ-centered information.  The primary aim of this site is to defend the faith of true Christianity and present newsworthy information that will build the faith of any doubters, or convince those who don’t believe to turn to Christ and become born-again!

This site will engage readers and commenters of all types and one does not have to agree with christocentric views to be an active participant on this blog.  I do have guidelines for commenting which are listed on my menu titled Comment Policy for a better understanding of how you may place your views.

Who am I?

profile pic

I am a conservative, evangelical Christian. I originally began my writing on topics such as the exposing of the anti-Christian celebration of Kwanzaa (formerly christocentric.com/Kwanzaa now morphed into this blog), Afrocentricism and Black Liberation Theology, just to name a few. My writings have now branched out covering any socio-political and spiritual theme as it relates to God through His Son Jesus Christ. So in opposition to an Afrocentric themed name, my blog became Christocentric – Christ centered! As explained on my home page, Christocentric has now become Christocentric Press.

Thank you for stopping by Christocentric Press and hopefully this site will be a blessing to you (or a pain in the butt depending on your perspective)! If you want to know how I became a Christian, then do stop by and read My Story!

Always in Christ,

Carlotta Morrow
Christian Activist
Freelance Writer/Researcher
Author of The Real Truth About Kwanzaa
San Diego, CA

——————————-

Previous published articles in the Southern California Christian Times (now called the San Diego Christian Examiner) and San Diego Union-Tribune (Op-Ed articles), interviewed in Ebony magazine (December 2007) and numerous talks shows both Christian and non-Christian nationwide.

(last modified 4/12/15)

10 Comments

  1. June Hafker the commandment to stay married is implicit in the statements already cited from Scripture. Adutlery is grounds for divorce and
    the term used was fornication not just adultery so it includes all kinds of things like perversion people might think wasn’t
    adultery because not with opposite sex when cheating on spouse, or prior sexual activities you can’t handle when you find
    out about it and suchlike also I suppose getting married using fraud or force would be a case in point.

    things that are just “ceremony language” were taken dead seriously as vows that bound you just like vows under oath
    in court, vows to a feudal lord, etc. etc., if you don’t take them seriously, don’t say them. say something else.
    Your attitude and that of too many indeed is that of an habitual purjerer. these are not man made doctrines, they
    are right in the Bible. IF remarriage after divorce without biblical reason for divorce is adultery, then you are supposed
    to stay married till one of you dies.

    This may be a counsel of perfection with forgiveness possible for a failed marriage replaced by another. sleeping around
    is not an option I Cor. 6:16 cites Genesis chapter 2 to show that sex makes the two one flesh, even when done with
    a prostitute. All fornication is then adultery. and mortal sin. Sex without strings and treating marriage as a greater
    commitment than the vows of love spoken in passion and the sex act means that you should not be doing that sex
    if you don’t consider you are bound to that person, with or without paperwork, thereafter.

    Apparently your word isn’t worth a damn, with your attitude. even if taken by oath before God and dragging His
    name into it. remind me never to go into any business deals with you without everything in writing signed and
    witnessed so I can get justice when you defraud me.

    Paul in addressing the Corinthians says that to avoid fornication every one should have their own spouse. Clearly
    this to people who had the wild background of typical Corinthians was not addressed to virgins. Sounds like there
    is a sliding scale here from totally unacceptable to trying to do it right this time.

    as for breeding like rabbits, the early church canons denounce potions to kill the unborn, not barrier contraceptives
    or coitus interruptus.

  2. wiggle room. The Pharisees considered themselves pure if they kept details of The Law and therefore they could go through women (or men) like kleenex if they followed the correct procedure. Jesus points to the original pattern in Eden, and says Moses allowed divorce “for the hardness of your hearts” so they were in fact guilty of adultery, but it was tolerated adultery that would not be held against them or not to the point of cutte out of the covenant. But it was STILL adultery. and frankly on that same basis so is polygamy!

    Yet Jesus did NOT rescind this, but did call to perfection. As models, pastors, elders should not be divorced and remarried and sometimes adultery is the result of problems started by the attitudes and words and treatment by the victim of adultery, and if this person is indeed totally innocent, how about the bad judgement that got them with such people in the first place?

    Hardness of our hearts – would include perhaps clinging to questionable dreams and memories of people parents as models ideals from media etc., and refusal to listen to gut warnings or to God’s own voice even perhaps warning against this marriage?

    Paul gives also the exemption that if abandoned (or kicked out, same thing) by an unbeliever, the believer is free (ergo to remarry, if not free but bound then not free to remarry). And one could argue that some abusive behavior (not all of it physical) shows the person is either in fact an unbeliever or so backslidden as to be almost such. suppose the marriage was got by some fraud? And then what if rape in the marriage occurred, or hounding or even seducing the partner into anal sex, condemnable regardless of homosexual or hetereosexual context, as per an early church rule. Then what about adultery with a member of the same sex? or molesting of the children or of others without actual sexual intercourse? bestiality? At some point, you have to apply the exemption to things that many churches don’t accept but to still reject little difficulties and fading of emotion and boredom that some churches very liberal accept.

    Again, in Malachi God says His ultimate purpose for marriage was to have a godly seed, so just what kind of monster are you having as help to raise the kids? HOWEVER neither Paul nor Moses in Genesis states that OUR purpose for marriage should be children. A godly seed results in part from the relationship they grow up around, that relationship children or no, contraception or no, should be the purpose and focus of the couple.

    But easy divorce is not the answer. However, in the days polygamy was allowed, God also said He hated divorce. I don’t approve of multiple partners, and don’t get me wrong I am no Mormon. But in some rare cases, perhaps polygamy (or polyandry?) would be preferable to divorce and remarriage and less damaging. For instance, where someone has maintained a secret life and second family alongside the first, this might be regularizable?

    If a couple are living together, there are several states and DC which have always accepted common law marriage, after a certain number of years they are legally married, and to break up must go through a legal divorce proceeding. This is not a liberal modern thing, this is a holdover from centuries and though some states never had this many states had this then dumped it. Most states rejecting this,do recognize such marriages that were established in common law marriage states, Since sex makes the two one flesh, not the quality of the relationship, not a marriage ceremony, the sex act itself even with a prostitute, note I Cor. chapter 6 I think it is, this puts a whole new view on the issue of adultery. promiscuity IS a kind of serial adultery. And someone who dumps his or her faithful partner of many years, to legally marry someone else, is committing adultery. Yet I recall some idiot who claimed he never sinned because he never committed adultery (the only sin he recognized as existing) because he was never married. Considering the drugs sex rock and roll scene he was in I doubt he was a virgin.

    pastors and elders need to be models of wisdom, self control, and so forth, and though it would be unfair to fire one because of divorce because the spouse had committed adultery, one might require a review of the proposed new marriage. After all, he shouldn’t be such
    an idiot or dreams and hopes emotion driven person as to get into a bad scene and hopefully not twice. But Paul did say “the husband of one wife.”

    The innocence of the victim is not the issue, it is the victim’s fitness in terms of wisdom and courage to face reality and walk away from a bad possibility that looks good that is the issue.

    Being in the Eastern Orthodox Church this is not a problem for me, our priests are either celibate, or married once before ordination, and if the spouse dies or leaves or commits adultery and there is a divorce, cannot remarry.

  3. Just found you website, and thought I would comment on Jeremy reply. Jeremy, what does the phrase ‘except for marital unfaithfulness’ mean? It means that what Jesus is saying about divorce does ‘not apply’ to someone who is divorced due to ‘marital unfaithfulness’. This means that a person who is divorced due to ‘marital unfaithfulness’ is not included in the prohibition against re-marriage. It is not ‘wiggle room’ it is the ‘exception’ that God Himself provided. What is the point of Jesus say ‘except for marital unfaithfulness’ if he was not making that the exception clear? These verse teach that there is an exception, not that there is no exception.

  4. I’m very curious as to what your reply to Jeremy’s question will be, Carlottta….

    It’s because I have the same questions in my heart….

    I love your writing, and reading your blogs on a lot of the issues [particularly with respect to homosexuality/transgender-tendencies and fornication; not letting even the SEED take root] have helped me strengthen my GOdly resolve to wait for Jesus, keep walking the straight and narrow path with HIM, and I thank you for that!

    This issue of ”modern” christianity’s acceptance of the remarried divorcee, gets to me too. I go with Matthew 5.32. I completely understand what you explained about your ex not wanting to be married any longer, and I accept it.

    What happens next?
    The marriage vows, ’till death do you part,’ still valid in intent, if not spoken as frequently in modern times…?
    What’s your take?

    1. Yasmiin, I take seriously my vows and I expect my mate to do also. My ex broke those vows when he committed adultery and never sought forgiveness for it. I believe that’s why God permits divorce because of the breaking of those solemn vows.

      I believe I had answered Jeremy’s questions already which is why I didn’t respond to his last comment. I’m against divorce but people have to be freed when the vows are broken and no repentance is sought. Christ made that clear in Matthew 19 that a person who divorces another because of adultery is free to marry another.

  5. Not to beat up on you and my question is serious and sincere.

    How do you reconcile the fact that you are divorced with being a Christian? The New Testament is certainly more outspoken on divorce than homosexuality and only allows it in one circumstance (adultery) and then forbids remarriage. I know my church, Shadow Mountain, has divorced and remarried couples, I know my old church, Mariner’s in Irvine, has a divorced and remarried pastor, and I am willing to bet that the Rock has active divorced and remarried couples in it as well. I also note that “divorce” is notably missing from the topics you have on your page, yet many other sinful behaviors are there. I have always struggled to understand this seeming hypocrisy. Thoughts?

    1. Jeremy, your questions are very good ones and I don’t mind providing some answers to those. I am a divorced Christian and adultery was the reason. Even though my ex had committed adultery I was willing to forgive him and attempt reconciliation. But that wasn’t the case so I let him go.

      Divorce is not so much a topic I expound on because it’s not the topic that is creating major waves in our society today. Adulterers and/or divorcees are not petitioning people for acceptance and trying to get it removed as a “sin” in the bible as those who practice homosexuality. Same-sex issues are sweeping our nation right now and changing the face of many churches who are compromising God’s word to appear as being non-homophobic and accepting. It says a lot about a church where they would even ordain a gay minister! Even though King David committed murder and adultery, his marriage to Bathsheba was eventually forgiven and accepted by God. So I won’t judge any ministers who have done the same. But to be gay and a minister is the continuing practice of homosexuality and smacks right in the face of God of pure defiance! Completely unacceptable!

      Divorce is a major destroyer of families and it is addressed in most churches. It is just not pushed to be socially “normal” as homosexuality and it is always not a sinful situation for both marital partners. Many times as in my case, one is guilty and the other is not but God allows it because of the hardness of man’s heart. I’m glad He allows it (Matthew 19:7-9) because for me to remain in a very bad marriage was even worse than the divorce itself. I’m not saying I was perfect, as marriage is about two imperfect people blending together as one. But one must want their marriage to work! My ex had no desire to remain married and the marriage as a result ended.

      So no, not a hypocrisy to focus more on homosexuality than divorce. Homosexuality is affecting many many people. Because of its growing acceptance, now many who do not accept homosexuality are being persecuted for even daring to think of it as a sin. Christians, churches and any religious body that condemns the practice of homosexuality are now the ones becoming the “evil ones.” Nobody is being labeled evil for condemning divorce.

      1. Thanks for the reply Carlotta, I didn’t mean to pry into your personal life or the reasons for your divorce. You are right when you say divorce, or more precisely, the discussion about divorce, isn’t causing major waves in our society. It seems we’ve already had that debate in the 1970’s and on and that the Christians lost the debate as now divorce seems very easy and accepted where it once was not. I disagree that divorce isn’t currently making waves in our society. I think it causes major waves every day, but we have come to be so accepting of it that no one wants to be seen as a “bad person” because they treat a divorcee the way they used to in society where it was considered scandalous.

        You talk about a “gay” minister continuing in sin because he continues to practice homosexuality. It seems pretty clear from scripture that a divorced person who remarries is guilty of adultery and therefore that person too would be continuing in sin too.

        Matthew 5:32

        But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. (NIV)

        Matthew 19:9

        I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery. (NIV)

        Yes homosexuality affects a lot of people, but divorce affects many, many more. Divorced people don’t have to petition any one for acceptability….. anymore. They already have been accepted, not just by secular America, but by almost every mainstream evangelical church I can think of. And the divorced and remarried person, as the associate pastor at Mariners Church is, is by definition an adulterer and doesn’t have to think twice about acceptance, he and his wife are automatically accepted. It just seems glaringly inconsistent to me.

        You are right, no one is being labeled evil for condemning divorce, but that is because no one condemns divorce and remarriage as adultery anymore. It is now accepted as the norm and that inconsistency troubles me. It seems very parallel to where we are today with homosexuality.

        I don’t know any other way to interpret Jesus’s words in Matthew to create any wiggle room.

        Thanks again for your reply.

        1. Jeremy, Jesus didn’t have to talk about homosexuality, because He addressed almost no one but Jews, and they already knew from The Law that it is abomination. All He had to say was “repent from your sins” and each hearer who knew his own sins, knew what he had to quit.

          Paul addressed people with pagan cultural baggage, which included homosexuality as okay or if illegal to some extent some places or in some circumstances, culturally supported anyway. They even (as do our prison culture and many amerindians, mediteraneans and arab cultures) thought that you are not homosexual or perverted if you a male play the male role in the sex act, only the male playing the female role is perverted. that is why Paul had to list “abusers of themselves with mankind” arsenokoites, arsen, man defined by being strong and dominant, koites couching sex alongside “effeminate” fag pseudo woman type gays.

          It is ironic, that too much of a focus on sex role can aid perversion. Instead of “what am I built like? what am I equipped with?” the issue becomes behavior, personality, etc. defining you as male or female. Take that far enough and you get transsexualism.

          Jesus had to address divorce, because the Jews had lost track of Genesis by focussing on what in Moses’ Law they could get away with, and had to focus on hypocrisy, because even though the 10th commandment includes those issues Jesus raises in The Sermon on the Mount, it is largely invisible so unpoliceable. And because some hypocrisy cloaked itself well in the trappings of Mosaic precision. Some might even have deceived themselves, many knew what they were doing.

    2. well, it seems you are beating her up on this disputation of doctrine. It is NOT a commandment, that 11. Thou shalt stay married, and shall never separate from thine spouse.” It does specifically state that you must NOT sleep with anyone else’s spouse, or anyone else when married. I believe that if Charlotta should ever be found to be “playing around”, as in sexual misconduct, then great, beat her up on that for her own good. Otherwise it should be dropped as she has permanently separated from her marriage vows and that’s that. Or from what I see that is that. “Til death do us part” does not originate in scriptures that I know of? If it does, then please post that. I believe this is just part of the human marriage ceremony language. This is a sore subject, like the one that commands that Catholics continue to have baby after baby after baby and NEVER do anything to prevent baby after baby. Or else never go near each other or have sex. Even though you are stuck with that person for life and only that person. Ergo, it is insane.
      Man enforced doctrines have nothing to do with salvation or Heaven or perhaps anything else other than man made dogma to support priesthoods and pastorships rather than Christ and the Holy Spirit Himself. I’m just putting this out for consideration and if you can prove me totally in error then please do.

Leave a Reply