 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1199 posts Location: Langley, BC |
 The divorce of the church-state marriage institution |
Posted Feb 10, 2004; 5:14 pm |
|
It's hard to escape the ongoing debate over what the definition of marriage should be. Christians in particular seem to be quite split on what the best way is to maintain the sanctity of marriage while not legislating a Christian lifestyle for those who aren't Christian.
My own view is quite radical. I think the church needs to separate its idea of marriage from the state. I think churches (and synagogues, temples and other religious establishments that marry people) should create a higher marriage covenant that is a required component of having a wedding performed by their clergy. Each church (or denomination or religious body) could have its own marriage covenant over and above the state requirements. Some churches may require premarital counselling before they perform a ceremony. There may be religious establishments that only marry one man to one woman where both are over the age of 18, and others may marry anyone who meets the state requirements. Some churches may have clauses in their marriage covenant that specify the partners must both take at least six months of marriage counselling before filing for divorce; others may prohibit divorce completely or permit divorce freely.
If a partner who has signed a marriage covenant breaks any of its terms, they are ineligible to be remarried at any other church -- even at churches whose marriage covenant doesn't include whatever term the person broke. Of course, this person could still receive a state marriage license as often as they want, since state marriages would only have the minimum legal requirements. This way, there's absolutely no reason to have a church wedding with all the extra requirements that come with that unless a couple wants to make a more serious commitment to each other than is legally required.
That's what I think should happen. That way, the state is free to open up marriage as wide as they want, while those who want to commit to something more sacred and meaningful can still do so. There would be no tax or other financial or legal benefits to a church marriage -- no difference at all in the eyes of government -- but it would still be a possibility for those who wanted it.
Of course, it would be even nicer if the word "marriage" was reserved for this higher covenant, but the church's idea of marriage has been wedded to the state for too long to make that plausible. Rather than fighting for the name, I think it's more useful to fight for the meaning behind it.
Impractical? Pie-in-the-sky? Or, do you have a totally different idea? Please share! |
|
|
|
| Ben |
| |
Posted Feb 12, 2004; 10:03 am |
|
This is the second time that I have heard about seperating state and church weddings. I was hearing that some pastors in Ontario are longer legally marrying people. They send the people to the justice of the peace and then do a Christian wedding.
I have not thought too much on this issue. But I do have a concern.
I believe that any person who is married (whether they had a church wedding or not) is married in the sight of God. Dividing church and state weddings could send the message that people married by the state are not married in the eyes of God.
I am stilling thinking about this issue. Marshall you raise some very good points. |
|
|
|
| Mennonightmare Member Joined Mar 25, 2003 70 posts Location: St. Catharines, ON |
| |
Posted Feb 12, 2004; 10:27 am |
|
hey marshall,
fabulous post...well thought out. you say that your view is quite radical...in my opinion, your view is simpy something i would call radically reformed, which is after all our heritage. i wonder if you haven't read some hauerwas  your thoughts seem quite hauerwasian...and in my mind anabaptist (which i think we all realize refers to the wider body of mennonites and brethren in christ et. al. and not the munsterites  )
the thought of seperating what we do as the church from the state seems what our forebearers were pushing for all along. in my mind our fight to legislate what marriage is to society at large is falling into the old constantinian trap which i believe anabaptist have traditionally (and i also believe rightly) called a heresy.
ben, i don't think that when ppl. outside the church "marry" (i put this in quotes because i think that society IS using this term in a different way then how we use it in the church...i too would love to maintain the term but if it is so devoid of meaning to our culture than perhaps the church does need to accept a new term)...as i was saying, i don't think that such an act is something that we would or even should say is the same as two believers covenanting with one another before the community of faith and God.
i think that if we seperate what we do as the community of faith from the state, then perhaps the church can actually start being the church again. then perhaps we will actually begin to see a diference between how the world marries and how we marry...maybe the divorce rate will stop being the same as society at large.
but i digress.
marshall, i see one thing that is highly probable with your suggestion (or could be)...
that is when you said:
| Quote: | | If a partner who has signed a marriage covenant breaks any of its terms, they are ineligible to be remarried at any other church -- even at churches whose marriage covenant doesn't include whatever term the person broke. |
i like that, and i want to agree with that...but how do we decide who's in and who's out? know what i mean. at what point does a marriage stop being a "christian" marriange and start being some ceremony performed in some "quack" group (i know that comes off sounding bad, but you catch my drift). it seems that such a position is going to be difficult because different faith communities have different rules. thoughts?
"pie in the sky"--for sure it's pie in the sky marshall, but doesn't mean it shouldn't be pushed. all christian ethics are "pie in the sky" that's part of the point  |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1199 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| |
Posted Feb 12, 2004; 10:40 pm |
|
Thanks for the comments, Ben and Tom. No, I haven't read any Hauerwas, but now that you've mentioned it, I'll add him to my to-read list. 
| Tom Friesen wrote: | | ...maybe the divorce rate will stop being the same as society at large. |
Exactly. It is shameful that Christian divorce rates are no lower than the average. Obviously the problem isn't just that society has lost sight of the meaning of marriage; we as Christians also need to rediscover that meaning so we can set a better example for society at large. If Christian marriages aren't statistically better, then why should we expect others to be attracted to our marriage values? (Or further, why should we even presume that our values really are higher?)
| Quote: | | at what point does a marriage stop being a "christian" marriange and start being some ceremony performed in some "quack" group |
That's a difficult question. The scenario I laid out requires the marriage covenant to be open to more than just Christian groups. While some religious groups could choose to have no extra restrictions past what the state requires, the rest would be part of this system. I don't think there should be exceptions whereby someone can break their marriage covenant and yet get a new one from a church with a more lenient covenant. (Of course they could still get a state marriage license.) I see it as similar to the biblical exhortation to not make an oath lightly; if you do make one, no matter how silly it is, you're obligated to keep it. |
|
|
|
| Mennonightmare Member Joined Mar 25, 2003 70 posts Location: St. Catharines, ON |
| |
Posted Feb 13, 2004; 8:12 am |
|
hey marshall,
good stuff.
a quick question, would you be welcome or even encourage a couple who has left one faith community and joined another to renew their marriage vows within the new community and faith that they've embraced? (i'm meaning more of a switch from one religion to another than simply from one denomination to another, although perhaps that is in place at times too).
also, what if some "quack" group celebrated i dunno, marriages of the dead or something, or believed that a person is still bound to their deceased spouse and cannot remary even though the spouse is deceased...so, said person leaves that group joins your church and falls in love...i know this is far fetched and i hate to be propogating silly scenario's that would most likely not occur. however, you catch my drift of what i mean by "quack" group...hey, i'm sure they're out there
peace brotha
tom out... |
|
|
|
| Ben |
| |
Posted Feb 13, 2004; 9:08 am |
|
| Are you guys stating that those people who get married by the state would not really be married in the eyes of God? And therefore they would be living in sin? It seems to me that the only council that we could then give them would be to have a church wedding or get divorced. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1199 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| |
Posted Feb 13, 2004; 1:04 pm |
|
| Tom Friesen wrote: | | a quick question, would you be welcome or even encourage a couple who has left one faith community and joined another to renew their marriage vows within the new community and faith that they've embraced? |
I'm not sure. That would seem to be an easy loophole to "downgrade" a marriage covenant to make it easier to dissolve. If a couple wants to renew their vows, they can do so in the sight of God, friends and family without the need to sign a new covenant. Perhaps there could be a way to add new restrictions to their covenant, but I do not think there should be a way to remove restrictions.
| Quote: | | also, what if some "quack" group celebrated i dunno, marriages of the dead or something, or believed that a person is still bound to their deceased spouse and cannot remary even though the spouse is deceased...so, said person leaves that group joins your church and falls in love |
I'm going to be stubborn and say they should get a state marriage license and confirm it in front of God, family and friends without getting a new marriage covenant. The problem in making an exception is that it makes the whole concept as useless as the current system. Worse, it could lead to people changing their faith (or pretending to) just to get out of a marriage.
| Ben wrote: | | Are you guys stating that those people who get married by the state would not really be married in the eyes of God? And therefore they would be living in sin? |
Personally, I think two people marooned on an island can make vows to each other and in so doing have their marriage recognized in God's eyes. God doesn't need to see a state marriage license or an officiating pastor at the ceremony in order to bless the union. A state marriage license makes the union legal and provides the couple with the financial and legal benefits that go with marriage, and my hypothetical marriage covenant facilitates the public accountability and deeper commitment.
In a way it's like believer's baptism: an outward sign of an inward commitment. There are many ways to be baptised, but the standard procedure (in our country at least) is for it to happen in a church by a pastor. In unconventional circumstances, it could happen in a swimming pool by a friend. Similarly, there are other ways to make a marriage commitment, but if my system were implemented, this marriage covenant would be the standard procedure for Christian weddings. |
|
|
|
| Maria10 Member Joined Jan 7, 2004 22 posts Location: Coquitlam, BC |
| Church-State Marriage institution... |
Posted Apr 13, 2004; 2:20 pm |
|
I have heard your arguement before and you have obviously put some thought into how it might look if followed through. The problem with how wide the state expands the definition of marriage is not the meaning behind it. Yes, by the states expansion of the definition of marriage, the Christian meaning of the word becomes lost. But was it not lost long ago when the divorce rate began to spike? Was the meaning of joining in marriage not lost when couples began to live together and gained status as a union after co-habiting for more than one year? The true convenant of marriage in the Christian context has long been lost in Canadian culture. The problem that the church will face when the states definition of marriage expands past where it is now and becomes law, is persecution. If we set up our own rules that conflict with that of the states rules, then we run the risk of being taken to court, fined, and maybe even inprisoned. It seems unfathomable that we would come to that in our society. Did we not come to the new world so that we could have religious freedom? Is Canada not a multi-cultural country in part due to the religious freedoms that we have? The problem will be how tolerant will Canada be if we say "NO. Marriage is a union between one man and one woman which God has ordained and blessed."? We should be preparing ourselves for the battle that will ensue once the world around us really sees that we are serious about marriage.
We can do exactly what you said we should; redefine our own definition of marriage by putting the covenant in its place of honour. The church I know has always put marriage in a place of honour and worked to keep it together and strong. Our stance on marriage may very well be the defining issue of Christian commitment across the country. Let us pray for courage to do what is right even if we are persecuted because of it. This is even more important because we are not used to persecution. We have lived in relative freedom for so long, I can only pray that we are ready for what is ahead as our culture moves farther away from God. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2902 posts |
| Marriage Commitment |
Posted Apr 19, 2004; 4:25 pm |
|
Well, here is a whole lot of whatever from a guy that hasn't had much success with marriage but still believes in it as originally intended.
Marshall said ' Personally, I think two people marooned on an island can make vows to each other and in so doing have their marriage recognized in God's eyes. ' I agree and I also think that many of our western cultural ways work in opposition to what many think marriage should be.
I came from a one marriage, Christian home but I have had two failed marriages and am now married a third time. After the second marriage breakdown I was spooked and my current wife and I lived together for a number of years before we obtained an official marriage license. As was pointed out in a previous post, the government recognized us as married after one year of living together. The first two were in an Evangelical church with all the bells and whistles and vows. The last was in Las Vegas by a Justice of the Peace.
In each case, when we commited to live together it was always a state of us only and no one else and with the intent of forever.
It is always interesting when you read the Old Testament and you see how God worked inspite of various marriage situations. Guys like David and Solomon with many wives and concubines. How could the Spirit of the Lord at times operate through these people with what today we would call a very sinful state. Many battles in the OT were won and wives were taken as part of the plunder. Then Jesus comes along and points out that adultery can occur in your heart so perhaps many Christians are guilty of breaking the marriage covenant in this way. And what about fornication. The period of time that a young couple is perhaps engaged, waiting for a hall for their wedding festivity to become available and in the mean time burning with lust for each other trying hard to hold out until this official ceremony day. Are they guilty of fornication (sex outside marriage) in their heart ?
In OT times it was pretty straight forward. Select a wife and she became your wife. Some cultures pick mates out for their children and I am thinking they perhaps have a better method than our culture does. This whole dating and sexual experimentation thing today is quite out of hand, in my opinion.
And then there is the whole issue of couples today using birth controls and many ultimately determining not to have children. In some cases it appears to be a selfish decision. Wasn't a family the original intent of marriage and children were thought to be a blessing ? Who changed this ? Do we have the right to be married and control this just because we now can ?
So, when two people, using counselling, determine to get married, they should go and get their government marriage license and begin living together. God is aware of their intent and commitment to each other. I think the engagement period and trying to stay pure and a virgin in this culture is expecting too much. Once legally married they can begin planning their celebration day and have a ceremony that reflects their resolve.
I am not too much into policing how people are living up to their commitment to each other. As I said, how many Christians are commiting adultery in their heart that we cannot see ? How many times do men fail to love their wives as Christ loves the church ? How many times does the modern woman resist any submission to the husband ? How many today are really living up to the scriptural way of husband and wife relationship ?
Anyway, I probably said enough here to trigger some responses to straighten my thinking out in this area and I welcome it. I am so glad that God has blessed me with a wife that is keen on serving God and we can share the Lord daily together. |
|
|
|
| marco_funk Member Joined Sep 13, 2004 13 posts Location: Saskatchewan |
| What do Mennonites Assume? |
Posted Sep 13, 2004; 2:32 am |
|
Haven't we always assumed that marriages done by Christians have certain 'high' expectations placed upon them? The reason that I do not feel at all threatened by what the government does with the 'official' definition of marriage is because I have never used the governments politically-correct dictionary to define Christian practices to begin with. When my partner and I decided to get married we both knew that we were getting married on Christ's terms... we did not need a church-state marriage-concept separation because we didn't assume that the state defined marriage in the first place.
anyways,
good comments from all of you!
peace,
Marco |
|
|
|
|
|
