I’m going to start by explaining my bias, so you can read the rest of my article through that filter.
My beliefs regarding “proper” marriage are that:
1) People ought to refrain from sex until marriage.
2) Marriage should be only between one man and one woman.
3) Marriage should be a nearly* unbreakable commitment.
4) Parents should have a wide latitude of authority and responsibility in rearing their children, with some basic criteria for sufficient care and reasonable discipline.
5) It will make a far better home for their children if the parents are highly committed to one another.
“nearly” meaning only broken in case of clear abuse or unfaithfulness.
Separating the civil and religious concepts of “marriage”:
Despite this “conservative” view on marriage, it is my belief that government ought to get out of the marriage business. “Marriage” as a term has long held religious connotations, and in my opinion it is undesirable and even dangerous for government to be responsible for forming or recognizing religious distinctions. Personally, I feel that the concept of marriage has been massively cheapened in our culture. By allowing government to define marriage, we have also allowed government to define divorce and for it to heavily influence how a marriage should look. When I got married, I made an unbreakable commitment to my wife. No matter what happens in our lives, I will sacrificially make decisions for her best interest. This is the commitment I think “Biblical marriage” calls for from a man. Biblically, I don’t think gay marriage is appropriate (another discussion), and definitely don’t think things like a marriage of convenience for the sake of citizenship or tax benefits makes sense. The problem is that as soon as we equate “religious marriage” with legal rights, protections, or perks people will “fake it” to get those benefits.
The concept of “separation of church and state” is a political theory, and not the law in the US. That said, I do think separation is a good idea for the protection of religion. Allowing government to define religion has only weakened that definition. Far better if government did NOT define marriage, but allowed religious organization to produce their own definitions. A religious group can then base its definition on its holy books, and not have to worry about a civil government infringing on their definition. Properly, religious organizations should already be doing this, rather than allowing the government to define what ought to be a highly sacred agreement between two parties. What would be far better would be to split marriage into legal “civil union” system and a religious “marriage” system. Such a system would allow a single man to form a “civil union” with his elderly mother, making her his “partner” as considered by insurance companies, medical decisions, and for property ownership. Two brothers would be able to for a “civil union” if they wanted to merge their finances. If I wanted to sponser my buddy in Mexico becoming a US citizen, I could form a “civil union” to help him get citizenship (though likely with a “pre-nup” protecting my financial assets). This system would be preferable for both the religious and the non-religious citizen.
As a result, I support a civil union that:
1) Allows any two non-minors citizens to form a legal bond with pre-determined exit clauses.
2) Allows those entering into the bond to establish rules for mutual property ownership / death benefits.
3) Allows those entering the contract to file taxes jointly.
I also support laws that ensure that biological parents have the right to raise their children (with possible court supervision if the parents disagree or are determined to be unfit) and a responsibility to support their children (again with court enforcement in case of disagreement or improper conduct).
Opposing gay marriage:
Given the above, one might suppose that I support gay marriage. In fact, these positions do not make limiting the legal expectations of “marriage” to people of opposite genders legally or logically unsupportable. The above claim of making “civil unions” as a not a morally based institution really only makes sense if no limits are applied (as described above) or when restricted to people with biological children. Any other position is not “ignoring morality”, but rather imposing a new set of moral imperatives. If we allow “gay marriage”, but do not also allow the marriage of close relations and complete strangers seeking a tax or immigration benefit, we are implying that “legal marriage” is more than just a contractual state. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to file taxes jointly with any random person I choose to file with? Why should I not be allowed to change my “next of kin” list at will, or choose to add my elderly mother to my insurance policy as my partner? Sure, this is the way things HAVE been done, and is an entirely legal way to do them, but does it make sense from a non-moral position? I fully support “special” legal protections for the biological parents of a child, and the expectation that they will financially support their child. I support allowing churches to refuse to marry couples that are same sex, or couples that have pre-marital sex, or even couples that have tattoos if they choose. That’s freedom of religion. I see no reason though to restrict tax filing methods or “next of kin” modifications at will though.
Any “just add gays” kind of approach that does not make “civil unions” an unrestricted contract between ANY two adults is STILL making moral judgments (against cousins or siblings). If we are basing the legal definition of marriage on our personal morality, I am in opposition of gay marriage. A legal contract shouldn’t carry any expectation of a “sexual relationship” anyway. Prohibiting a “civil union” made entirely for tax purposes or to gain citizenship is again imposing one’s morality on others. The fact that others believe that sibling marriages are wrong, disgusting, or even harmful to society doesn’t change my opinion, because I believe the same things are true about gay marriage. Either we agree not to enforce personal morality by law (civil unions for any pair of people), or we wait until they have a majority that agrees with their personal morality before we change the laws. We either agree that the legal contract does NOT impose morality, or we all fight for OUR definition of “proper” marriage. Nobody is likely to change what I think marriage ought to be here, and I’m not going to try to change what others think it should be. Either we agree not to impose morality (and therefore allow close family members to form “civil unions” to protect property or for tax purposes), or we agree to impose “majority morality” (in which case I continue to vote against gay marriage until I’m in the minority).
Note regarding terms:
I do think it would be valuable to use a separate term for the government contract to clarify that we aren’t telling religions what to do, but words aren’t what I’m arguing about. What I am saying is that we need to make it clear that the legal arrangement is separate from the religious arrangement. There are two main reasons why religious groups strongly oppose “gay marriage”. The first is that they believe (as I do) that gay partnerships are undesirable for society. That said, most religious people I have spoken with do not wish to forcibly prevent such partnerships. The second reason they oppose “gay marriage” is that they are concerned about the increasing dilution of the term “marriage”. 50 years ago, it was expected that a marriage would be more or less permanent, and that it would only be broken as a result of good cause (abuse or unfaithfulness). Today, we have a high divorce rate which I (and others) believe it hurting children and society. By splitting the terms, we can allow religious groups to define “marriage” as they see fit while not restricting legal relationships between consenting adults.
My intent is to make VERY clear the distinction between the religious ritual and the legal contract. Look through this thread for the people who support “marriage” for gays but not for siblings. There is no legitimate reason for this aside from the moral judgment of the poster. The term “marriage” implies a relationship that should not be needed for a purely contractual arrangement. If you agree that any two consenting adults should be allowed to “marry(1)” and that a religious body should be fully allowed to define its own terms for who it will “marry(2)”, we are probably fundamentally in agreement. I still think that separate terms for marry(1) and marry(2) though would help others understand the distinction better though, and am unwilling to support marry(1) for same sex couples so long as ANY other restrictions are placed on it.
You may also be interested in:
This is an interesting article. One problem, though, with switching to having the government just issue “civil unions”: we’ve had the government issue marriage licenses for so long that the term “marriage” has a very strong cultural significance. If we switch to “civil unions”, are we going to tell atheist couples that they can’t get “married”?
Also, if we do not allow “gay marriage”, then how are we respecting the freedom of religious groups to bless same-sex unions as marriages? Doesn’t making same-sex marriages illegal trample on the religious freedom of Unitarians, Reform Jewish Congregations, the Metropolitan Community Church and perhaps also the Episcopal Church?
I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone make a suggestion that a man could enter into a “civil union” with his elderly mother to simplify financial matters. It’s an interesting suggestion. However, sometimes our government takes a legitimate interest in promoting certain agendas without recourse to religious beliefs. A good example of this is the government’s agenda to deter violent crime. Similarly, the government has an agenda in making sure that children aren’t abandoned and left homeless. This agenda extends to same-sex unions. The government may restrict incestuous marriages because there are legitimate state interests in doing so: any children who result are likely to suffer ill effects from inbreeding, and the vast majority of psychologists and psychiatrists state that incestuous sexual intercourse is indicative of a mental disorder. However, judges are increasingly finding there is no legitimate state interest in restricting homosexual marriage. The vast majority of psychologists and psychiatrists agree that homosexuality is healthy, and that children do equally well when raised by two homosexual parents in a loving, committed marriage. So legalizing gay marriage, or gay civil unions, does not open the door to civil unions or marriages that will have an adverse effect because the government has only to declare a legitimate state interest in banning such unions – and if the unions truly will have an adverse effect, that’s quite easy to do.
This idea is almost exactly what has been trying to form in my mind recently. My thoughts are that the government should get out of the marriage business completely. I would be willing to give up any marriage benefits (lower, easier-to-file taxes for one) if the government stopped recognizing marriage as some sort of special relationship.
Numbers 1 and 2 in your civil union requirement list could be accomplished with a simple contract between two citizens. There doesn’t need to be some special concept of “civil union,” just a contract. With such contracts you could specify who is your “next of kin” (eg for family-only hospital visitation) and who has power of attorney in various circumstances. I don’t think we even really need joint tax returns (especially if we did other things to reduce the tax burden and shrink government). One of the governments jobs should be to enforce contracts between citizens, and that should be the extent that they are a player in the marriage game.
I’ve been having an e-mail conversation with a friend that started last week about began with the question if “Should Churches allow their buildings to be used to marry non-Christian homosexuals?”. In my first e-mail I started off with this that seems to go along with what is being said here:
“I do not think that non-Christians, regardless of what sins they struggle with, should be married in the church. Marriage is a Christian thing, but Christians have forgotten that. It is a sacred covenant between man, women, and God, and anything less then that in Christian eyes is not really marriage because it lacks a person who it needs. Now it is true that marriage has become secularized in our society, the government has really taken over the business of marriage and has made it far more about tax status then anything else. It’s gone from sacred covenant between 3, to business contract between 2. That is all fine and good, the government can give tax breaks to whoever it wants to, but in the process we’ve forgotten how serious and sacred marriage is. So if a couple who is non-Christian come to a church and ask to be married I honestly believe that the pastor should tell them no. If they want the tax breaks, or a marriage contract, go to a civil magistrate who is set up to do marriages (there are a lot of them) but make it clear that the kind of marriage they are after is not what is done in the church, it’s so much more. It’s a divinely instituted ordinance that the church does for those who are part of the church. To attempt to give it to those outside of the church would be lying (how can they have it when they are missing the person in their relationship who makes is happen), and it would drag what marriage is through the mud.”
It’s been a good conversation, and far from over.
I agree with the list you start with.
Like you, I could be persuaded to allow a variety of legal partnerships between adults with the point being there is a legal, yet non-sexual reason for the partnership. What I won’t tolerate is using the word “marriage” to include every type of legal union. I believe the word marriage should mean a legal and (at least implied) sexual union between one man and one woman from which children could be expected. That is a non-religious definition of legal marriage.
As for gays, I would allow a legal partnership, but not call it marriage because their sexual relationship does not produce children who need legal protection. They can have a legal union if they want, just like any two other adults, but they don’t get it because they’re gay–they get it for whatever list of reasons any other two adults might have a legal partnership.
In terms of a Venn diagram, I would see the word marriage covering a specific proper subset of a larger group of legal partnerships, based on the fact that children are likely to be produced (and it is in the best interests of the state to protect these children).
Also, I fully support religious marriage, but to me that is a somewhat different topic. I’d like to see the two-tiered marriage system that some parts of Latin America has–a required civil ceremony and an optional church ceremony.
That would mean religious marriage is a proper subset inside of marriage which is a proper subset inside of legal partnerships. This makes religious marriage more restrictive than civil marriage and way more restrictive than legal partnerships.
As a result, I support a civil union that:
4) has a limit of only one “union” per person every 10 years. No swapping for profiteering.
Bryan, where do you get it that marriage is a Christian thing??? It was started at the beginning of creation, not when Christians came on the scene thousands of years later. Marriage isn’t some secret society thing that only those who know the secret handshake can partake in. It’s part of the natural order of things, and any pastor who would deny a non-Christian heterosexual couple would be severely in the wrong. Now, a discussion could be had about how best a pastor should present the gospel, and what he should do if specifically asked to not present it. Marriage is to be enjoyed by all, and nowhere in the New Testament or Old Testament is there support for your idea that marriage only belongs in the body of Christ. We are merely called to transform it and maximize it in its potential.
Darius, I definitely don’t agree with you there. Marriage is not an institution that arises out of nature – in fact, nature seems to argue for non-monogamous relationships. But marriage is a special institution ordained by God to reflect his order – namely the plan of salvation and the relationship between Christ and the church.
Pastors have every right to deny a marriage ceremony for whomever they want: including homosexuals, non-Christians and adulterous heterosexuals.
People have been marrying and given in marriage since the dawn of civilization. Now you’re suggesting that Christians showed up a few thousand years later and take the idea for themselves??? This is bizarre. A pastor should deny homosexuals and adulterous heterosexuals, but he should do whatever he can to affirm marriage in non-Christians. The institution is under attack enough as it is in the secular culture, pastors and Christians don’t need to start attacking it too. “Oh, you’re not a Christian? Your marriage isn’t valid then.”
Darius, (I think) Colin and Bryan aren’t saying that Christians own the idea of marriage or that non-Christian marriages are invalid. Rather, that marriage was ordained by God. After all, think about it… if we believe the Bible is true when it says God created Adam, then Eve – each in their unique gender – and then brought Eve to Adam, that is pretty much God ordaining marriage.
But Colin and Bryan, 1) wouldn’t you say that if non-Christians make vows to each other, regardless of whether they think those vows are before God, they still are before God?
2) Don’t you think Darius has a point when he says “a pastor should… do whatever he can to affirm marriage in non-Christians.” That doesn’t mean pastors have to or necessarily should perform non-Christian marriages, in or out of church buildings. But if a couple requests a marriage by a pastor, it would, at the very least, be a good opportunity for the pastor to sit down with them and talk about the God-ordained nature of marriage, and explain what it means to make those marriage vows.
I should have said “created order” not “natural order.”
Patrick:
All that would be changed by by system would be the term of the document you get from the courthouse. It would be a civil contract that may follow a default format mirroring what we currently think of as marriage. “Marriage” would become an unofficial term, which could be used or not used by the couple as they saw fit. Religious organizations would not be involved in the civil contract at all, and would retain full rights to marry or not marry any individuals they chose, or to mandate certain contract templates for those getting married in their church.
Government would not define marriage under the proposed system, and therefore COULD not restrict it. The whole point of separating the term is to allow religious organizations full freedom to define marriage, which would mean that one church could recognize same sex marriages, another could recognize polygamous marriages, and another could recognize only heterosexual marriages which included a binding commitment to lifelong contractual requirements.
And it is my belief that there is a legitimate interest in promoting heterosexual marriages over same sex marriages. If we are going to make laws based on what we believe is a legitimate public interest on this issue, I will always campaign my hardest AGAINST same sex marriages. I believe they are detrimental to society and if we are going to reward “approved” relationships I will oppose that status for same sex relationships. What I am proposing is that it is undesirable for government to regulate relationships at all.
This agenda CANNOT extend to same sex marriages because same sex marriages are biologically unable to produce children. This is not a religious or moral observation, but a biological fact. I agree that government should protect the interests of children, which actually strengthens my argument that marriage is irrelevant legally. The biological parents of any child already have a legal obligation to that child unless specifically released from that obligation by the court. My system focuses on that answer, making a parent’s obligations to their child the same whether in a contractual marriage or not. All other “rights” of marriage are not dependent on the possibility of biological children, and therefore should not be restricted based on anything but contractual agreements.
Jay
100% agreement. A “civil union” in my usage is nothing more or less than a contract template which is vetted for legal implications and which would allow one to get a contract without hiring a lawyer. Any customizations should be vetted by a lawyer to ensure that the legal implications are understood.
Bryan
Personally, I would allow marriage to any couple willing to swear an oath to comply with the Biblical requirements for marriage in regards to their treatment of their spouse. Under my above system, I would also expect them to sign a contract binding them to the same. I would actually make stricter requirements of those professing to be Christians. Paul makes it very clear that we are to have stricter expectations of our fellow believers than we do of the world. Encouraging a Biblical view of marriage even for those who do not accept the Bible is providing them with a model for Christ’s love even when they haven’t accepted that love.
Thainamu
Your statements 100% reflect my own views on the subject. So long as a “legal marriage” assumes a sexual relationship, I will oppose same sex marriages. When some form of civil contract is allowed that does NOT assume any sexual relationship (thus allowing one to contract with siblings and parents), I will support such a contract for any pairing of people.
Everyone
I am actually very surprised at the general support encountered! I’m going to have to re-read this since I meant to refine it before publishing and my ideas have become slightly better refined since I wrote it, but I am glad to see that others understand that my take on government regulation of marriage is not intended as an attack on the Christian model of marriage!
Darius, the dawn of civilisation was brought about by God. It is not a question of natural order. Adam and Eve were the first people and marriage was not an institution that Christians just took over but it was made and put in “the natural order” for a divine purpose. As far as I am concerned, there is a vast distinction between a monogamous contracted/vowed secular relationship (which many might erroneously equate with marriage) and a Christian man and woman joining together in marriage. A Christian pastor has no obligation to marry anyone other than Christians and Christians have no obligation to even recognise other forms of “marriage.”
Shannon, everything is done before God. But we know from the bible that God does not equate their secular contract with marriage as Christians.
Sure a pastor can and should sit down with anyone getting married, non-Christians included, and explain marriage. And if two people aren’t willing to affirm the truth after hearing him out, then he shouldn’t marry them. Or, if he marries them, he should do so as a secular official or witness – otherwise he is misrepresenting God.
“But we know from the bible that God does not equate their secular contract with marriage as Christians.”
Oh really? Pray tell, where do you find this?
Darius, you wrote:
“Marriage is to be enjoyed by all, and nowhere in the New Testament or Old Testament is there support for your idea that marriage only belongs in the body of Christ. We are merely called to transform it and maximize it in its potential.”
This is the basis where you and I differ, I think. Marriage should be enjoyed by all, I am in complete agreement with that (Excluding those who don’t wish to marry), but marriage is really only a full marriage when God is involved. In the Christian Church marriage involves vows before God, how can a non-Christian do such a thing? Thats what I mean by saying that if we marry non-Christians in church we are lying to them, allowing them to think that they have something that they don’t. They do have love for each other, and commitment to each other, but they don’t have God at the center and that makes what they have far less then a Christian marriage. What they have is a secular degradation of marriage, which in all honesty is better then what a lot of people these days have. I therefore think that non-Christians who want to get married, and go about having a wedding and making a contract with each other are by doing so showing that even they recognize that there is something important about marriage which is far better then just having meaningless relationships one after another. They truly love each other and want to do what is right, and I can respect that, even applaud it, but they don’t recognize that they are missing something.
But notice how I used the word degradation? We are not called to transform marriage, but to keep it pure. It is the world that has transformed it, and we need to call them back to it. If people come to a church expecting to get married, but not be held to Christian standards of what true marriage is, then they should be sent elsewhere.
Now I do think I have a slight disagreement with what Colin said at the end of his last post that you pointed out to him. If two non-Christians make a contract with each other, a secular marriage, then God will hold them accountable for that. They are missing a lot with such a marriage, but insofar as they have God will hold them accountable for it. My objection is not that only Christian marriages are valid, but that all other marriages are missing much, and for a church to perform a Christian marriage for a non-Christian couple it’s giving them the impression that they are not missing something. The church is called to do Christian things, not secular things; if God is not in the marriage then the church should have no part in giving it.
Darius, I would consider the evidence for my position just short of overwhelming. The principle of my argument is that God views certain contracts different than others – the example being a secular contract between two people, and a marriage between two Christians.
We see this principle emphasised in the OT, with marriage regulations being very strict for God’s called out people. Even punishment being levied for marriages other than what God had ordained.
New Testament commands on marriage require a biblical understanding of submission, headship and so on. These concepts are not understood by non-Christians in that specific, biblical way. Non-Christians are not even submitted to God, how can they be submitted to one another?
Also, many secular marriages are completely invalid in God’s eyes because they are adulterous because of certain kinds of divorce.
A contract made by men is definitely before God and God will hold all accountable for oath-breaking – but it is not the same as those contracts which God has ordained specifically for his church. Marriage is a Christian institution. While we have used the term to define any state-sanctioned monogamous (sometimes, but the state doesn’t require this, whereas God does) relationship – that is our error, and a failed attempt to Christianize people through institutions. It profanes what is holy and set apart for God and his called-out people.
Nevermind, you ignored my request. Let me repeat, do you have any BIBLICAL EVIDENCE for your position that non-Christians who marry are illegitimate before the eyes of God?
Colin and Bryan, Paul appears to disagree with you in 1 Corinthians 7:
Paul seems to be indicating that a marriage between a believer and an unbeliever is just as binding and holds the same responsibilities as a marriage between two believers. The fact that the wife isn’t saved doesn’t negate what marriage is. In the case of two unbelievers, their lack of understanding regarding what marriage is does not negate their responsibility toward their spouse. I would argue that all marriages have a responsibility to adhere to my 5 points for “proper” marriages, and that such requirements DO apply to all marriages whether the participants are Christians or not. Paul does continue in 1 Cor 7 to indicate that if an unbeliever requests a divorce it should be granted, but this is done for the sake of living at peace with all men rather than because the marriage is in any way invalid.
Couples seeking marriage should be expected to understand what mutual submission is, what sacrificial love is, and what unconditional commitment is. If they are willing to commit to pursuing these Biblical goals, I see no reason why a marriage should not be recognized by the church.
I don’t think my position has a problem with that verse Atanamis. Remember I’m not arguing that they don’t have some kind of contact before God (Call it a secular marriage), I’m arguing that the church should not be the one performing a marriage for them becasue the marriages that the church performs can only be done with the acknowledgment that God is part of the marriage. The “marriage” they are after is a degraded form of this marriage. Like I already said, God will still hold them to whatever they agree to each other to be part of.
The verse you quoted is not talking about who a church should be preforming a marriage for, it’s discussing what happens if your in a marriage (not performed by the church would be the assumption) and then you become a believer but your spouse doesn’t.
I think Colin and my positions are slightly different.
Again, Bryan and Colin, could you offer some Biblical evidence FOR your position? It appears that you’re making an argument from silence considering the fact that you continue to avoid giving any Scriptural text to support your view. You may indeed be right, but I would like that shown from Scripture (and more than Colin’s “I would consider the evidence for my position just short of overwhelming” statement) and not just your own personal opinions.
Darius, I cited biblical evidence. That’s all I did cite.
Also, this is a straw-man. I said they are still before God as contracts, but not “illegitimate.” Non-Christian marriages are fundamentally different than those that are actually in the Church.
Actually, you did not. You referred to the OT and the NT in general, but never gave any specific texts which specifically say that a Christian church/pastor should not support secular marriage.
I’m willing to be convinced, just give me some evidence.
Atanamis, my position is not that non-Christian marriages aren’t binding or important. But they are different. At the very least, they are still vows, and these need to be kept, if for that reason alone. I am also not arguing that the church shouldn’t “recognise” a non-Christian marriage, but that it should be recognised as something different than a Christian marriage. Again, a pastor may perform these ceremonies and Christians may recognise them, but let’s not pretend that they are the same as that set-apart institution which.
Similarly, non-believers can have fellowship, but I would say that Christian fellowship is fundamentally different. This is what I mean in distinguishing marriage here. Perhaps this example makes more sense as to what I mean?
This is redundant. I am not going to copy and paste verses that literally talk about God’s restrictions on purity in the OT or Ephesians 5 or whatever as though this were an essay or as if I am speaking to a person who has no concept of the general themes in the bible. I think you know exactly themes I am referencing as biblical evidence.
If you genuinely don’t, however, I’ll apologise for the above statement and walk you through some of these biblical basics.
“Again, a pastor may perform these ceremonies and Christians may recognise them, but let’s not pretend that they are the same as that set-apart institution which.”
Okay, now you’re separating yourself from Bryan’s position. That’s what I disagree with, not the rest of what you’ve said. I agree that Christians are called to something much more when it comes to marriage (at least, we recognize what people are called to). What I disagree strongly with is the idea that pastors or Christians shouldn’t perform weddings or recognize marriages between non-Christians or that they should consider it a lower class of marriage. Plenty of non-Christians, while not recognizing their Creator, have made very serious vows which they have faithfully kept. Plenty of non-Christians serve their spouse, sometimes better than most Christians do. A pastor should encourage anyone who is willing to set aside the world’s standard of hedonistic selfishness and join themselves to another in faithfulness. Now that pastor shouldn’t perform the wedding without some preconditions; like premarital counseling, explaining God’s model for marriage, sharing the Gospel during the service, etc.
So Colin, you would believe that a couple who were married as unbelievers should be remarried if both come to the Lord? According to your insistence that a marriage of unbelievers is inherently different before the Lord, this would seem like the logical conclusion. I would fully agree that the practice of a Christian marriage is inherently different both due to their greater understanding of the requirements of marriage and because without Christ in a marriage those requirements cannot be fulfilled. Despite this, I think it is foolishness and unbiblical to assume that the bond of marriage is somehow less valid between unbelievers than between Christians.
The same rules of marriage apply to both believers and non-believers, just as the same rules for moral living apply to both. Of course, like with moral living adhering to these rules is impossible without Christ, but the commitment being made and the binding power of that commitment are unaffected. Just as the church should encourage moral living (while not implying that doing so is sufficient for salvation), so also the church should encourage moral marriages. Your position on not offering marriages is on the level of refusing to offer drug abuse programs on the grounds that without Christ someone cannot effectively resist addictions. Just because moral living does not bring salvation does not mean that the church should refuse to endorse moral living.
Atanamis (and Darius), I think this gets at the heart of the matter. I should have thought about this myself.
The answer is no, non-Christians should not have to get remarried in the ceremonial sense. However, when they both come to Christ, their conversion will also produce in them an understanding necessary for biblical marriage (not a mystical thing, but a derivation from their understanding of Christ and the church). This was not there before, but would now be there. In effect, their marriage would be fulfilled – in the same way that Christ fulfilled the law. Their marriage before was an echo, or a form of something holy and divine – upon being converted, their new understanding of and relationship with Christ – will open up their marriage to be the greater thing.
Now, I am not saying – and I am sad that I have to repeat this multiple times – that non-Christians aren’t making vows or aren’t responsible to God for their vows. However, they are not, and CANNOT have perfect synchronisation with the perfect nature of marriage that God outlines in scripture. They have “a marriage” and can have a great one at that – but it is not the same as a Christian marriage. It is fundamentally and spiritually different because the people themselves remain as “the old man.”
Colin, let’s back up. I initially responded to Bryan’s claim that pastors should not condone or perform weddings for non-Christians. At first, you took his view, but have since backed off of that. I have no disagreement with what you are now saying. I agree that an unbelieving marriage is not the same as a Christian marriage (nor can it be). I agree that coming to Christ will fulfill their marriage like nothing could.
You appear to agree with Atanamis and myself on the issue that started this: pastoral involvement in non-Christian weddings. After all, you did say that “a pastor may perform these ceremonies and Christians may recognise them, but let’s not pretend that they are the same as that set-apart institution which.” I think you misunderstood what I was in disagreement with.
Bryan, again, could you better explain (via Scriptural support) why a pastor should not involve himself in the wedding of non-Christians? As I have already said, I have no problem putting conditions on that involvement. But to ban it outright seems excessive and extra-Biblical.
Bryan, please also describe whether you believe that a couple who become believers after marrying should “remarry” after becoming believers since their marriages are not recognized by God. Personally, I’ve shifted almost to the opposite side of “recognized marriages” to wonder whether many relationships that are conducted without legal or sworn oaths are actually considered marriages before God. When Jesus said “what God has put together let no man put asunder”, I don’t think he was talking only about marriages between believers. This is why a believer married to an unbeliever is still bound. While the marriage might not be unified in pursuit of God, the binding of two people into one still exists regardless.
Not to insert myself into this again, especially in fear that this may seem convoluted, but I agree. How is this possible with my earlier statements? The way in which I agree, is that marriage has zero to do with the state. Therefore, just because Christian and non-Christian marriages are different, doesn’t mean there are not blanket ideas regarding vows and contracts that don’t apply. For example, I would argue that common law marriages are no less valid than state marriages – again, these two are different, but a basic idea of contract applies in both. I think it could be argued that a man and a woman are sealed by, for example, sexual union in a marriage-like way – and I think these people will be accountable for that decision on that basis (and others). Again, I still think a Christian marriage is even another step of different than these, but clearly there is some common ground here.
“I think it could be argued that a man and a woman are sealed by, for example, sexual union in a marriage-like way – and I think these people will be accountable for that decision on that basis (and others).”
Interesting… if I’m not mistaken, you are espousing something that I believe that is not well-received by most Christians; namely, that Biblically-speaking, “marriage” begins at coitus. So anyone who sleeps around is getting married and then cheating on his “spouse” over and over. One thing this means is that “living in sin” (as defined by modern-day Christians as not having made public vows or signed some document) is not necessarily sin if those people are faithful to each other and have expressed said faithfulness to their partner. Sleeping around always is, living monogamously with your first sexual partner is not. Of course, why they wouldn’t take the obvious next step of getting officially married is a good question. In practice, a faithful, committed, yet unmarried relationship is quite rare, as the primary reason to not get married is due to a lack of commitment in at least one party.
I don’t see Scriptural support for the idea that two people have to have a piece of paper signed by the State or at least one witness to some public vows to be considered married before God. What I do read is that man shall leave his parents and be (sexually) joined to his wife. That’s marriage. If you then go on to sleep with someone else, you are committing adultery (over and over if you sleep around). It’s a bit of a heretical view within the evangelical church, I’ve found.
The main complaint I would have with this view of marriage is in regard to the making of a public commitment to one’s spouse, which I do believe is an important part of marriage. I therefore shy away from calling a sexual relationship which does NOT include such a commitment as marriage. Marriage to my understanding is a decision of the mind, not a physical action of the body. If this view of marriage were correct, I think the Biblical descriptions of sexual sins would not include a concept like fornication, something that is definitely indicated in original language terminology.
I don’t really see any strong argument though that a marriage need be legally recognized, performed in a church, or approved by religious leaders. This is why I find Bryan’s suggestion that religious leaders should refuse to recognize such a union to be strange. A pastor no more marries a couple than he saves an unbeliever. Both life altering decisions are made in the hearts of the participants, and result in a spiritual change in God’s view. This change is not dependent on the full understanding of the participant in what they are doing, nor on the willingness of legal or church authorities to acknowledge what has happened.
“I think the Biblical descriptions of sexual sins would not include a concept like fornication, something that is definitely indicated in original language terminology.”
Is this really indicated? That’s my question. It says to not commit adultery, to not sleep with certain relatives, etc. but I don’t know if it explicitly says “don’t sleep with a woman (even if it is only one woman) until you are publically married.” Now, the custom and culture was such that public marriage always came before consummation, but I’m not sure if God spelled it out in his Word. To my knowledge, all we know is that God says that a man shall be joined to a woman. That seems to be marriage. Now what that joining entails is the question.
That said, I don’t want to be quick to overlook the customs of that time, since they quite possibly stemmed from extra-Biblical commands of God.
After all, there is something to be said for tradition.
Ok, I’ve skimmed through most of the new stuff in this thread, and I think there are 2 questions directed to me if I count right?
First Darius: All other times you asked for scriptural support you asked Colin directly which is why I never answered. I was actually waiting to see what he would say because to be honest I don’t think scripture directly addressed what I’m talking about, because I don’t see (unless I’m missing something here) it ever addressing anything about what the churches role in marriage is. Is there sections of scripture that discuss what the role of the church is in marrying a couple? I think, at least this is my understanding, that the Church performs marriage ceremonies because there is a long tradition of it (and I you all know I like tradition so I have no issue with this) and oats, and covenants and such, so it just seems natural for the church to perform the marriage.
My argument in this whole thing, which I never thought would be this controversial, is that in the marriage ceremony the church is performing is before God (as everything the church does) and the vows that the couple are making they are making to each other and to God. That is my understanding of what a marriage that the church performs is, is this wrong?
If that is the case, then for a church to perform a marriage of non-Christians means a fundamental change in what is being done since they are not giving their vows before God (at least they don’t believe so) and they are not including God in the covenant they are making. It is therefore a degraded marriage (even sub Christian if that term fits better). Now as I’ve said, even this degraded marriage is far better then none, it shows that the couple still wants something more then then a secular worldview allows for (but thats a whole other debate).
The question here then, is should a church participate in a marriage that does not recognize God, and is done to usurp his rightful position in the marriage covenant? My answer is no, if a church is going to perform a marriage they should require the people involved to go all the way; a full Christian marriage, not a 1/2 way secular degradation. The counter argument to this has seemed to be “But where in scripture does it say this?” (I’m actually surprised that it hasn’t been: But at least the people are willing to go this far, the church should embrace that.) My response is that the churches role in marriage isn’t clarified in scripture (If I’m wrong here please let me know, I may be overlooking something) and so I’m running this on the principle that what the church does it does before God, particularly it’s ceremonies. If you want to take part in the churches ceremonies you need to be part of the church.
Second Atanamis: I have two things for you. No, I don’t think they need to remarry. As I’ve said, in God’s eyes they are still bound by the contact they made even if they didn’t recognize it was made before God. What they need to do is make God a party to their marriage now. If they want to have a formal ceremony recognizing that fact I’m fine with that, if it’s something they simply want to recognize and then go and do I’m fine with that to.
Now you also made a comment about me believing that religious leaders should not recognize non-Christian marriages. I don’t think thats quite what I said. All I’ve been discussing is if a church should perform a non-Christian marriage, so what do you mean by recognize? They couldn’t recognize it as a Christian marriage, obviously, but they could recognize it was a contract the couple are bound by (which is only what the couple will be able to recognize it as as well). So I’m not clear on what you men by recognize. Do you actually mean preform?
But it looks like you and I may have a deeper issue here (I know because I use to hold to a position like yours). You likely think that the commitment made by the couple (and perhaps the act of sex) makes a couple married and not any external ceremony? If you do hold to that then yes, I would expect disagreement with my view, but not because of what I’m arguing but because I’m requiring a ceremony at all…and I think that will lead us way off to another discussion.
Is my position now clear as mud everyone? It comes down to including people outside of the church in a ceremony of the church.
Bryan, I think your position is clear as Caribbean ocean.
I can’t believe I’m taking part in this discussion… I don’t even like discussing quite this kind of thing. But anyway –
To whom it may concern – because I can’t keep track of exactly who’s asking which question of whom anymore: I think you have to define marriage as a commitment – no church ceremony required and before consummation.
Genesis 2:24 – “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.”
Okay, maybe all these phrases are meant to be understood as simultaneously occurring, but if we follow the order of this verse:
1) Man leaves his “original” family
2) Man picks a wife (hopefully she agrees) and they join up into a new family
3) Man and woman become one flesh
“But,” someone asks, “what about those marriage laws, like Exodus 22:16? – ‘If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.’
1) Come on, this is not the rule – this is how to deal with people not following the rule. Sure he has to pay the dowry if the dad says no, but the dowry does not equal marriage.
2) If marriage were just about the physical union, these two would be married whatever the father did or didn’t say. But he has a say – in a sense, participating in the commitment fundamental to marriage – “No, I’m not going to commit my daughter to you. So you’re not married.”
Oh, and by the way, no church or other social ceremony/approval of the marriage is present in these examples. But maybe that has nothing to do with Bryan’s position.
Sharon has fully articulated my view on what marriage requires. Superb summary! I fully endorse this definition of what a marriage requires, and the excellent Scriptural support given.
My complaint to Bryan is that if non-believers can genuinely marry, why shouldn’t a pastor conduct that marriage? People WILL marry regardless. If secular weddings are performed by the church, the church has the opportunity to communicate to the couple what a marriage SHOULD be. The failings of a secular marriage are not because they are not truly married, but because they do not have God in their marriage. If the secular married couple have been told what marriage SHOULD be, they will better recognize the lack in their own marriage and be drawn to God.
Marriage is NOT simply a vow or a legal contract. Rather, it is a spiritual change in their status before God. Breaking or failing to live up to the requirements of this binding is sin, regardless of local laws or even the specifics of the vow made. A couple can make a vow allowing them to not sacrificially love one another or submit to one another, but they are still going to be called to account before God some day for whether they have done so. This binding in marriage is NOT only applicable to Christians who understand it, but to all humans ever to marry.
I fully agree that pastors should be allowed to make pre-conditions on marriage including that the requirements of marriage be communicated to the couple. I strongly disagree that a pastor should refuse to formally recognize (in the form of a wedding) a bond that God is creating, regardless of whether the couple being wed fully understands what is happening. I even more strongly oppose the idea that unbelievers should not even bother marrying, since they don’t really understand what marriage is (which I’m beginning to suspect is NOT what Bryan is saying).
I haven’t read all of the posts from the last few days, but skimmed most of it.
Atanamis said in his last post “Marriage is NOT simply a vow or a legal contract” and continued to talk about what marriage is (vow before God, etc). Bringing the discussion back toward the original post, I think this is exactly true. So true that I see it as an infringement for the government to require a license for me to do it, or even to give special benefits that encourage people to do it. Marriage, as far as Christians are concerned, should remain a sacred institution that exists within the realm of the Christ’s Church. Jews, Muslims and Pagans are all free to have there own version of marriage. But if the government stays out of the way, we wouldn’t be having the debate about gay marriage (or the debate about inter-racial marriage a few decades ago), at least not in the political arena. If they wanted to have some ceremony and wear some sort of symbol signifying that they are dedicated to each other, fine… heck, they can even call it marriage, though it will not be consistent with my definition of marriage. This is much like the differences of definition of “Communion” within the Church today (who consecrates it? does it even need to be consecrated? who can take it? how? consubstantiation or transubstantiation?). Those differences are much more important, in terms of eternity, than the marriage debate, IMHO. I sure am glad the government doesn’t give out tax breaks every time you celebrate the Eucharist.
I also have just skimmed through the above posts and one thing stands out. The government is climbing a slippery slope here. The traditional definition of marriage is where most churches draw the line. In fact I’ll be bold enough to say that most mosques and synagogues would do the same. If government gets into the business of defining marriage and then decides (with voiciferous backing from its more liberal constituents) that it needs to impose this definition on religious institutions, it will have crossed a line that will blow the entire argument of separation of church and state out of the water.
Those that advocate this approach to the definition of marriage need to be careful since they are the biggest critics of any display of religion in the public square. As the adage goes “You can’t have your cake and eat it too”.