Kirk Cameron helps couples fight for marriage

By Jessi Stone Assistant editor | Jan 29, 2014
Photo by: Donated photo

While many still remember Kirk Cameron as a former TV star and teenage heartthrob, Cameron stepped out of that limelight many years ago to answer a higher calling — from God.

Cameron will be making a stop in Franklin on Feb. 9 at the Smoky Mountain Center for the Performing Arts to present “Love Worth Fighting For,” an event to help couples strengthen and save their marriages.

As a teenager, Cameron starred as the goofy and loveable Mike Seaver on the sitcom “Growing Pains” from 1985-1992 alongside Alan Thicke and Leonardo DiCaprio. But it was his on-screen girlfriend Chelsea Noble that perhaps influenced his life for years to come.

Noble and Cameron have been married now for more than 20 years and have six children. In an interview with The Mountaineer, Cameron said he had labeled himself as a “recovering atheist,” as his Christian faith developed when he was older.

“I lost my faith in atheism when I was 18,” he said. “I had a personal shift in my life that made a big difference (meeting Noble) and I’m thankful for God giving me a new direction to move in. Luckily, I was not in and out of rehab like a lot of my actor friends over the years.”

The “Love Worth Fighting For” tour was inspired by the movie “Fireproof,” which starred Cameron in 2008. It’s the story of a firefighter whose marriage is going up in flames. In an attempt to save his marriage he participates in a 40-day experiment called “The Love Dare.”

“We received such a strong reaction to ‘Fireproof’ that we turned it into a live event to bring to church so couples can take four hours and come to a date night at a church to sing, laugh and pray together,” Cameron said.

North Carolina born singer-songwriter Warren Barfield, who wrote the theme song to “Fireproof,” has joined Cameron on stage during the last four years as they’ve taken the show to 120 cities across the nation.

“We’ve had a great reaction and sold out so many churches,” Cameron said. “It gives people hope and reminds them their marriage is worth fighting for.”

He said he had couples that said they were canceling their divorce hearings after attending the show and even one divorced couple came to the show as friends and decided to remarry each other.

Though Cameron doesn’t claim to be Dr. Phil or a marriage counselor, he said he does know what the Bible has to say about the subject of marriage and can help guide couples through it.

“The same God that designed the universe designed marriage and I’ve gotten to know him and his manual,” Cameron said. “He speaks from authority and makes it understandable for guys like me. We can open it together and see what he says of the subject.”

Cameron said marriages don’t fail — people fail — and America needs to decide whether marriage is sacred or not.

“If it is sacred, God has something to say about it just by the definition of sacred,” he said. If it is scared, he said people shouldn’t try to redefine what God has designed, “which is one man and one woman for life.”

Cameron said couples attending the show could expect to hear a lot of personal stories and experience from himself and Barfield, who has written songs inspired by stories about his own family.

Cameron said many couples say that a lack of communication or money is a big issue in their marriages.

“But the truth is those things are only a problem when people are selfish,” he said. “We must bring the gospel into it and first talk about fixing your own heart before talking about your marriage.”

He believes every marriage can be saved because nothing is impossible with God, but he said people could destroy a marriage through actions like adultery in which the sacred bond of marriage is broke.

“It’s not to say it can’t be saved and healed and restored, but if you cheat you have effectively destroyed your marriage,” he said.

Cameron said he was thankful for the path God has taken him down and he will continue to select projects like “Left Behind,” “Fireproof” and “Love Worth Fighting For” that honor his family and inspire others.

“Get ready to have a great time with music, fun, singing, praying and strengthening relationships” Cameron said of the Feb. 9 event. Showtime is 4 p.m. and tickets range from $20 to $35 each and are available as reserved seats or general admission for singles, couples and groups of 10 or more.

For more information, visit www.loveworthfightingfor.com. VIP tickets are available online through the website, which allows ticket holders to come an hour early for a private question and answer session with Cameron and Barfield.

Comments (9)
Posted by: James Franklin | Jan 29, 2014 23:30

Kirk Cameron is a hateful homophobic bigot.



Posted by: Scott Lilly | Jan 30, 2014 09:34

I loved the film "Monumental" that Kirk Cameron was recently in.  (I didn't see that one mentioned.)



Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Jan 31, 2014 11:02

       God has nothing to do with my marriage. Barb and I were married by a Justice of the Peace under Yahoo Falls in the Daniel Boone National Forrest. No preacher present. No prayers given.

       As OUR Founders seperated the church from the state and established it is the role of OUR Government to equally protect conscience, religion only has as to do with anyone's marriage as the couple allows/wants. It is neither neccessary nor required that any "God" have anything to do with anyone's contractural agreement that binds them to each other. If no "God" is required to establish the agreement, no"God" is required to end it or meddle in its workings.

             While OUR Godless Federal Constitution has historicly allowed the states to administer marriage, in too many instances, the states have employed bigotry and limited inter-racial, inter-religious marriages, etc. By and large these issues have been dealt with and rejected as un-constitutional. The right to marry or otherwise enter into a contractural agreement backed by the state if problems occur should most certainly include same-sex couples. If they are beyond the age of consent, not too closely related.

 

        C.Z.



Posted by: Scott Lilly | Jan 31, 2014 11:48

"God has nothing to do with my marriage." -- The concept of marriage pre-dates the United States by a good many centuries.  Marriage as defined in the Bible (Matthew 19:4-6) is certainly a SACRED condition.  (Defined as connected with God.)  When the United Stated was founded, there was no confusion as to what marriage was.  As we've evolved from "freedom OF religion" to "freedom FROM religion", marriage (a RELIGOUS concept) is being applied to your "contractual union" -- in your case administered by the Justice of the Peace.  At some point, some (mostly Republican) folks started to try to form a distinction between the two I believe to reinforce the believe that a true marriage involves God and is therefore harder to dissolve than a contractual union.  Having been married before God, with God, and by God, I want my definition of marriage historically preserved as a religious and sacred event and I appreciate any government activity that will do so.

 

If someone were to try to name a newspaper "The Quran", can you imagine the outcry that Islamists would have?  Especially when you recycle "The Quran" and can use "The Quran" for laying down for your pet.  How silly (and offensive) it would be to use a religious term for something that it's not.



Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Feb 01, 2014 11:59

         Mr. Lilly;

 

          No offense but "freedom of religion" requires there be freedom from religion. It is two way street. As OUR Founders took great pains to completley seperate the church from the state, there is no requirement whatsoever that anyone entering into a marriage contract do so with any religious involvement.  OUR secular Godless constitution prohibts OUR govt from entangling religion altogether:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The North Carolina Religious Clause is more specific:"All persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience, and no human authority shall, in any case whatsoever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience".

        The bible is not a Founding Document.

         Equal protection of the law allows you to belive as you so please and act in accordance to those beliefs as long as you don't cause harm to someone else AND! they don't complain(unless they are under the age of consent), but you are obligated to defend other's right to opinion that is different from yours. That is the price of Liberty.  It is a price not all are willing to make.

 

          C.Z.



Posted by: Scott Lilly | Feb 02, 2014 10:11

Mr. Zimmerman, I recognize your right to be as atheist as you like.  Even to worship satan if that's your choosing. 

 

The word "marriage" originated from Latin to mean husband and wife which did not include same-sex unions.  Even in later use in France, England, and even the US, the term describes husband and wife relationships uniquely.  Only in the last few years has a gay and lesbian movement attempted to redefine the word "marriage" to be incompatible with how most Christians interpret Matthew 19: 4-6: And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?  So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

 

Obviously there is little room here to change the meaning of a single word to make this concept fit a same-sex union.  "Marriage" is the only English-language word that exists today to describe the union of a man and a woman to fit this biblical meaning.  Now that some have succeeded in formally changing the textbook definition of the word "marriage", I suppose we believers will have to create another word to mean what Mr. Kirk Cameron will be describing in his presentation: a union of a male and female by God that no man should separate.  (formerly known as "marriage")

 

The Bible is most certainly a "Founding Document" -- a collection of them actually.  And the interesting thing is that people who follow the Founding Documents of the Bible live under many forms of government around the world that are ALL less enduring than the Founding Documents of the Bible.

 

Please also remember what the purpose of the US Constitution was: to LIMIT the power of government.  Before the US Constitution was written, it was declared that all men are created equal as described by the United States Declaration of Independence.  Nature's God (note the capital "G") provides us certain unalienable rights by their "Creator".  (Capital "C")  If anyone attempts to argue that the US was founded as God-less, then I suppose you have to interpret the Declaration of Independence as "certain unalienable Rights" (magically or otherwise?) come from the mother and father of two bio-chemical life forms or a doctor that makes a test-tube baby?

 

So the very document that birthed the United States had "Nature's God" as the source of "unalienable Rights" we enjoy and the Constitution protects.  That's freedom "OF" religion as you get to choose what god you believe gives you those unalienable Rights.

 

Mr. Cameron will clearly be speaking of marriage from a Judeo-Christian God perspective.  Your attendance and participation are not mandatory.  That's all for now... I have to go to church!  :-)

 



Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Feb 02, 2014 11:41

Mr. Lilly;

 

          No offense but, the Declaration of Rights is not a "Founding Document". Most especially the 2nd paragraph which was written by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin and John Withespoon. Regardless, Jefferson's first paragraph is the more important:"When in the course of human events..."

           Jefferson's proposed second paragraph was:"We hold these truth's to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant; that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the the persuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted amongst men, deriving their powers from the consent of the goverened;..."(notice no capitols nor mention of "God"). This reflects quite well what had just been adopted by the Virginia convention of Jefferson was a participating member on June 12, 1776:Virginia Declaration of Rights, Article 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independant, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety". (Madison incorporated the Virgnia Declaration of Rights into the Federal Constitution as the "Virginia Resolution" and the14th Amendment restates and confirms the meaning quite well)  This was essentially a deistic embrace of John Locke's "Theory of Toleration" with the deistic notion of Naturally inherent or otherwise inalienable rights of Liberty of self-determination being more tightly embraced as time went on with culmination of Jefferson'a Act For Establishing Religious Freedom which rejected the bible, and most especially reaveled truth's as "false religions" practiced by mere "uninspired men"  thruout history. As Jefferson established:"that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions,..."

            Mr. Lilly;

             OUR shared Constitution is by intention entirely Godless. And more. As the First Amendment provides, no law shall be made establishing any religion. Judeo. Christian. Or otherwise. OUR First six Presidents were not just mere deists, but also embraced the "self-evident truth's" of the Unitarian opinion of religion. I.e. Jesus was a man. In fact with the Rosevelts, etc, more US Presidents embraced Unitarianism than any other religious opinion. Nixon was a Quacker.

             "Equal protection of the laws"(14th Amendment) is OUR govt's first duty. The first Commandment exists in complete defiance of any such thing. The next three have nothing to do with "Common Law(7th Amendment).

         I have come to embrace Thomas Paine's abmonition:"My own mind is my own church". He not only wrote the paphlet "Common Sense" which saved the Revolution, but also "The Age of Reason" whereby he did a point by point refutiation of the bible. He was also a deist. It is on line. Quite interesting.

                    

            C.Z.

Mr. Lilly;

 

          No offense but, the Declaration of Rights is not a "Founding Document". Most especially the 2nd paragraph which was written by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin and John Withespoon. Regardless, Jefferson's first paragraph is the more important:"When in the course of human events..."

           Jefferson's proposed second paragraph was:"We hold these truth's to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant; that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the the persuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted amongst men, deriving their powers from the consent of the goverened;..."(notice no capitols nor mention of "God"). This reflects quite well what had just been adopted by the Virginia convention of Jefferson was a participating member on June 12, 1776:Virginia Declaration of Rights, Article 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independant, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety". (Madison incorporated the Virgnia Declaration of Rights into the Federal Constitution as the "Virginia Resolution" and the14th Amendment restates and confirms the meaning quite well)  This was essentially a deistic embrace of John Locke's "Theory of Toleration" with the deistic notion of Naturally inherent or otherwise inalienable rights of Liberty of self-determination being more tightly embraced as time went on with culmination of Jefferson'a Act For Establishing Religious Freedom which rejected the bible, and most especially reaveled truth's as "false religions" practiced by mere "uninspired men"  thruout history. As Jefferson established:"that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions,..."

            Mr. Lilly;

             OUR shared Constitution is by intention entirely Godless. And more. As the First Amendment provides, no law shall be made establishing any religion. Judeo. Christian. Or otherwise. OUR First six Presidents were not just mere deists, but also embraced the "self-evident truth's" of the Unitarian opinion of religion. I.e. Jesus was a man. In fact with the Rosevelts, etc, more US Presidents embraced Unitarianism than any other religious opinion. Nixon was a Quacker.

             "Equal protection of the laws"(14th Amendment) is OUR govt's first duty. The first Commandment exists in complete defiance of any such thing. The next three have nothing to do with "Common Law(7th Amendment).

         I have come to embrace Thomas Paine's abmonition:"My own mind is my own church". He not only wrote the paphlet "Common Sense" which saved the Revolution, but also "The Age of Reason" whereby he did a point by point refutiation of the bible. He was also a deist. It is on line. Quite interesting.

                    

            C.Z.



Posted by: Scott Lilly | Feb 02, 2014 13:24

The Declaration of Independence is why the US Constitution was written and in that sense it is historically and logically important as a founding document providing context to (the how and why) the founding of the United States.  The pioneers were in one status (subjects of the King of England), they denied that status for a list of reasons (Declaration of Independence), and therefore they created another status (a new form of government limited by the US Constitution.)

 

All people in the United States enjoy protection of the certain unalienable Rights that a Creator gave to them -- so says the "We" in our Declaration of Independence.  We The People enjoy the wisdom of the faithful (of many faiths) that signed their names to the US Constitution as was "done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names."

 

Denying "Nature's God" logically also denies the certain unalienable Rights endowed by a Creator and therefore the US Constitution that is meant to protect those Rights.  In fact "freedom FROM religion" would lead you down a path where ultimately a ruler will enslave and/or kill his subjects.  If there is no God and we're just a complex clump of biomass that ceases to exist after our bodies decay, then we have no certain unalienable Rights that need protecting by a US Constitution!  Would the suggestion be that we just all voluntarily get along just to be nice?  (Oh, how Darwin would tear that theory to shreds!)

 

My friend, like it or not everyone in the US enjoying "rights" owe their gratitude to "Nature's God" and His endowment of certain unalienable Rights that some wise and faithful pioneers embraced when securing the "Blessings of Liberty."  ("Blessings", I might add, is in the preamble of the US Constitution and is defined as "God's favor and protection".  In other words, He's in there -- no matter how much you might wish he wasn't!)

 

A good debate for a Sunday, indeed!

 



Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Feb 04, 2014 12:26

           Mr Lilly;

           Sorry but no. Not even close. I inherited my rights from my "creators". My parents. Again. The Declaration of Independance was used to declare the reasons as to why the Colonists were ending their political bonds with England.  It is not a declaration of rights and there are no legally binding principles derived from it. It was derived primarily from George Mason's Declaration of Rights adopted by Virginia on June 12, 1776. Jefferson went thruout Virgina to explain it was not he who wrote the second paragraph as it was in direct conflict with what he and the radicals from Virginia had just established as the notion of rights directly given by any God was considered too conservative and allowed anyone claiming to be a "man of God" to be a tyrrant.  

         The printer added the date as it appears in OUR Constitution. It has no relevance except as to date. Otherwise there is no embrace of any God. Far from it. The "no religious test clause" as well as the Bill of Rights forbids it.

           Most certainly OUR Founders embraced God. They did so in certain and particular ways. They most certainly established that at the frist creation, the created were given "the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety"(Article 1. Virginia Declaration of Rights).

             George Washington and James Madison acquired passage of Jefferson's Act For Establishing Religious Freedom. It lays out the phylosophy of OUR Founders quite well.

             Search for "The Virginia Declaration of Rights", Mr. Lilly.

 

              C.Z.

         



If you wish to comment, please login.