Via Kim Moreland:
No wonder that many in our culture imagine that a “marriage” could be between people of the same sex. If marriage is all about individual preference, why not define it however you want? It it’s just about two people making a temporary agreement, then why should consenting adults not be allowed to define the terms of their agreement however they please?
I want to propose a radical solution to this problem. Churches should stop performing marriages.
Let me explain. Pastors should consider no longer performing the civil ceremonies of weddings; instead, they could explain to prospective brides and grooms that if they want a state marriage certificate, then they should go see the judge. But if they also want a biblical marriage….
Read on. It’s well worth it.
_______________
Possibly related posts (automatically generated):
I support the church divesting itself from civil marriage for precisely this reason. I have long also advocated for the STATE to stop performing “marriages” altogether.
Civil marriage should be replaced by a “household contract” that is devoid of any reference to sexual preference – and therefore fair and suitable to allow asset-sharing for any combination of people, including all manner of PLATONIC relationships.
This serves to take the “morality” and “equality” hammers off the table, completely keeps the state out of defining a religious practice, promotes fairness in a way not currently offered by same-sex marriage proponents, and removes the underlying “forbidden fruit” motivation that spurs many proponents in the first place. It therefore removes any pressure on churches by the state to conform to conflicting ideals of marriage. This way, biblical marriage can remain intact within the churches, and the state is simply in the business of enforcing contracts instead of defining religious morality.
To borrow from Peter Arnett: “It became necessary to destroy marriage in order to save it.”
My big concern with that is that the state really does have an interest in promoting real families; and I think in a way this is appropriate for the state to take an interest. It’s for the preservation of the culture, for the keeping of the peace, for order, and so on.
I agree with that – in theory. My main concern is that in practice, it will get more and more difficult unless something changes the current momentum. My position is more of a “firebreak” than anything.
This is a very interesting issue. I am conflicted: a while ago I came to a position similar to Beez (#1), but whenever I hear a response like Tom’s (#2), it gives me pause. For if the state really does have an interest in upholding families, then it ought to be in the marriage business, no matter what anyone’s personal opinions about marriage.
But (and I ask this honestly, not rhetorically), is it really the job of the state to uphold families? I know the family is the building block of society, so it is obviously in society’s interest to uphold the family, but it does not necessarily follow that the government is the best tool to accomplish that goal.
To draw an analogy, I think Jesus made it quite clear that it is our responsibility to care for the poor. So we should all support government welfare programs, right? Well I don’t think welfare is a very good idea, not because I don’t care about the poor, but because I believe that the government is a lousy tool for addressing the needs of the poor. I think local communities, especially churches, can do a lot better long-term job of addressing poverty in the context of relationships, fostering the sense of membership and shared responsibility that needs to accompany freely given material aid.
I am not anti-government — I do think the government is the best tool to accomplish a limited number of ends (such as law enforcement, national security, etc.) — but it seems to be a common fallacy these days to assume that, if some good end exists, then we should try to accomplish it through legislation and federal programs. Is the government the best tool for upholding real families through a definition of marriage? I doubt it, but I’m open to anyone who wants to convince me otherwise.
Well said, Bill.
Agreed.
Would that matters were more simple and obvious than they are.
I have a question about this.
Let’s say a move like that is made – churches get out of the state marriage business, and now there is a sharp division between a state marriage and a real (religious) marriage.
A) Would this mean that state marriages are thereby looked upon as little more than a kind of contract?
B) Would a man/woman couple who get a state marriage be considered ‘really married’ by churches?
C) Given A, wouldn’t this mean – oddly enough – that the position of orthodox religious would flip, such that instead of it being in their religious interests to preserve marriage, it would be in their interest to regard state marriage as not sacred at all? (I could see a scenario here where orthodox christians happily support polygamy and even greater excesses in a ‘state marriage’ context.)
If all churches joined in doing this, I think there would be an immediate cultural backlash that would eventually work it’s way up the political and legal ladder. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Getting married in a church is part of our American culture. Some might see it (mistakenly) as a personal right that cannot be denied, including a liberal judge or two. If you were to take that away from a sizeable percentage of the population I think the whole marriage debate would end up in court or on the ballot – yet again. I cannot see the church losing the legal battle though.
What an absolutely dreadful and ill conceived idea. The proposer of this idea is merely seeing the glass as half empty. First it has been the practice of many churches to insist on premarital counseling beforehand. That has been the case FOR DECADES. It has provided many with the longest exposure they have ever had to the gospel message. We can call on the church to use that opportunity to communicate Christ not tell people to go elsewhere. Many churches also refuse a church to be used without the pastor of the church officiating which allows another opportunity to share the gospel with the entire wedding attendees. Political messages are not the mission of the church – reaching people for Christ is.
Second the violation of marriage by divorce by no means cancels its salt effect on the country we live in. In the US many a man involved in adultery has been convicted by his own vows of cleaving only to one. It is still a very WIDELY held sentiment that marriage should be forever and it is testament that the church HAS and sill does have an effect. The fact that sinners sin should in no way cause us to consider our generation entirely post-christian. Many have been brought to a recognition of their own personal failings in regards to a divorce and it operates in convicting much as the Law under Mosiac terms does for the sinner under a call to grace.
Thirdly there is absolutely NOTHING that indicates in scripture that marriage is just for believers. None. A close reading of both Old and New Testament indicates that Sex itself is an affirmation of a spiritual union. telling people that they can go and have a civil union wthout God is a violation of God ‘s design delivered in genesis two with no church in sight – That God sees a bond between any participant in the bed. Marriage is God’s natural law. There is no substitute for it and Jesus made no exclusion for Christian or non christian. Leaving your wife or your husband for any other grounds than immorality is a sin regardless of being saved or not. If the sinner can incur judgement for committing that sin then the church has the call to instruct the sinner of the weight of that sin which is CERTAINLY not going to happen at a judge’s office.
FOURTHLY what do we tell those that we turned away from marriage when they seek to save their marriage? Go back to the judge or we don’t care? then what of the children of the marriage?
this is not a call to any radical new approach its just sounding a retreat trumpet. Its turning away people who we would have a very good and protracted opportunity to witness to in order to make some feable bound to backfire political statement. Less and less people will get married in a church until third parties will emerge to create social habits that have no relationship to the church and marginalize it from the society in one of the few ways that we genuinely still affect it. There is wide spread acceptance in our culture that marriage is between a man and a woman precisely because so many of our marriages took place in churches. The glass is half full.
If all churches joined in doing this, I think there would be an immediate cultural backlash that would eventually work it’s way up the political and legal ladder. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.
All the more reason I’m wondering about option C on my list.
I imagine it would be a curveball. Churches* no longer participating in state-sanctioned marriage granting, but those same churches pushing for gay marriage, polygamy, and just about anything else.
(* Well, certainly some liberal churches would be on board with the state.)
Tony Jones has been saying this for quite some time, albeit from a slightly different perspective.
Early New England puritans banned church marriage ceremonies as a relic of Romanism. Government is the proper arbiter of earthly relationships.
The government’s main interest is to minimize later legal bickering over inheritance by registering marriages (and births).
The process of publishing intended marriages and being open to objections enables the community to give consent (through silence generally). It is important to all that family, friends, and neighbors consent to the union and thereby consent to properly support that union and the children it produces.
The custom of church marriages may be particularly hurtful to divorced persons wishing to re-marry. There are deep and involved divisions on the interpretation of scripture in this area. I believe that these are best resolved by the consciences of those getting married. Church ceremonies may injure the consciences of some congregants unnecessarily. And having both church-married and civil-married in a congregation is troublesome.