What is marriage?

[Marsha Lynn]

Genesis 24:67 Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah. So she became his wife, and he loved her; and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.

John 2:1-2 On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding.
The word "wedding" occurs six times in the NIV version of the Old Testament. The first instance references Samson's marriage to a Canaanite woman. The second (1 Kings 9:16) talks about Pharoah giving a wedding gift to his daughter. There is no reference to an Israelite wedding in any of the books of history.

In contrast, 45 of 77 instances of the word "married" in the NIV are in the books of history -- lots of marriages, no weddings.

In our culture, we say that without a wedding -- a state-issued license and some sort of pronouncement -- there is no marriage. Yet we have many 'Isaacs' taking 'Rebekahs' into their tents. We label it with terms such as "shacking up" and are adamant in separating it from real marriage.

I wonder ... in doing so are we failing to acknowledge the seriousness of the "act of marriage" when it occurs apart from the ritual of marriage? When Isaac took Rebekah into his mother's tent, their culture recognized their marriage. If we did that rather than denying that a marriage has occurred until the couple files their intentions with the state, how would it change things?

Currently, a cohabiting unmarried couple has no obligation to each other in the eyes of either the state or the church. We place no expectation on them to be true to each other or to continue the relationship for a lifetime. Rather, we vote for them to separate until they are married in the eyes of the state. We do not acknowledge that they have become one by joining their bodies together and that there is no going back to their previous "unmarried" state.

There was a time when "evidence" of such a union might prompt a girl's father to pull out his shotgun and strongly suggest to the young man that he publicly formalize the "marriage" that had already taken place privately. Now we deny that a physical relationship constitutes marriage in any sense of the word. Is this progress? We talk about being married "in the eyes of God and man" but seemingly never consider the possibility that marriage in the eyes of God might have more to do with consummation than ceremony. Is this something we need to reconsider? What would happen if we viewed tent-sharing as a relationship that automatically brings into play all the moral obligations that accompany a legal marriage, such as fidelity and life-time commitment?

Just thinking.

Marsha

[Hans Deventer]

What would happen if we viewed tent-sharing as a relationship that automatically brings into play all the moral obligations that accompany a legal marriage, such as fidelity and life-time commitment?

Just thinking.

If I didn't recently write that I like your thinking, then may this statement serve as such. I can only say, amen!

[Randy Wise]

Genesis 24:67 Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah. So she became his wife, and he loved her; and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.

John 2:1-2 On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding.
The word "wedding" occurs six times in the NIV version of the Old Testament. The first instance references Samson's marriage to a Canaanite woman. The second (1 Kings 9:16) talks about Pharoah giving a wedding gift to his daughter. There is no reference to an Israelite wedding in any of the books of history.

In contrast, 45 of 77 instances of the word "married" in the NIV are in the books of history -- lots of marriages, no weddings.

In our culture, we say that without a wedding -- a state-issued license and some sort of pronouncement -- there is no marriage. Yet we have many 'Isaacs' taking 'Rebekahs' into their tents. We label it with terms such as "shacking up" and are adamant in separating it from real marriage.

I wonder ... in doing so are we failing to acknowledge the seriousness of the "act of marriage" when it occurs apart from the ritual of marriage? When Isaac took Rebekah into his mother's tent, their culture recognized their marriage. If we did that rather than denying that a marriage has occurred until the couple files their intentions with the state, how would it change things?

Currently, a cohabiting unmarried couple has no obligation to each other in the eyes of either the state or the church. We place no expectation on them to be true to each other or to continue the relationship for a lifetime. Rather, we vote for them to separate until they are married in the eyes of the state. We do not acknowledge that they have become one by joining their bodies together and that there is no going back to their previous "unmarried" state.

There was a time when "evidence" of such a union might prompt a girl's father to pull out his shotgun and strongly suggest to the young man that he publicly formalize the "marriage" that had already taken place privately. Now we deny that a physical relationship constitutes marriage in any sense of the word. Is this progress? We talk about being married "in the eyes of God and man" but seemingly never consider the possibility that marriage in the eyes of God might have more to do with consummation than ceremony. Is this something we need to reconsider? What would happen if we viewed tent-sharing as a relationship that automatically brings into play all the moral obligations that accompany a legal marriage, such as fidelity and life-time commitment?

Just thinking.

Marsha

I think some do what some want and redefining marriage conditions won't change that, but does that mean that when they break up from as you write "shacking up" we will view that as a divorce? Or God will view that as a divorce?

I would also think that just because the bible didn't testify to agreements, vows made in your examples that doesn't mean some ceremony didn't take place according to the "customs" during that time. That custom process could have been started with the arranged marriage between the parents and I hope the couple were at least asked to give consent to the marriage selections made.

It was probably noted in ancient times regarding Israel when one slept with a virgin that was seen as a commitment made before God.

Randy

[Shea Zellweger]

I think there is fair evidence that what made a marriage in the OT was one or both sets of parents approving the union, and the man "taking the woman home as his wife." However, that certainly evolved over the years (see: Wedding at Canaa), and IMHO an adherence to contemporary religious views of marriage (have the wedding ceremony, no matter how small) is a part of holding oneself above reproach.

[Hans Deventer]

I think some do what some want and redefining marriage conditions won't change that, but does that mean that when they break up from as you write "shacking up" we will view that as a divorce? Or God will view that as a divorce?

I think He does indeed.

[Ryan Scott]

Marriage is the commitment of two people to enter into a relationship like the one Christ has with the Church - one of fidelity and self-giving love.

I think we begin to lose the context of marriage when we separate it from the model on which it is built - that of God's love.

[Hans Deventer]

Marriage is the commitment of two people to enter into a relationship like the one Christ has with the Church - one of fidelity and self-giving love.

I think we begin to lose the context of marriage when we separate it from the model on which it is built - that of God's love.

Sure. But how does this relate to Marsha's post?

[Ryan Scott]

Sure. But how does this relate to Marsha's post?

I think she has a point. Perhaps my perspective comes from the other side as well. We need to expect more from people, but we also might work on how we communicate that via ceremonies, etc. Perhaps our long engagement period doesn't speak as well to the relational aspect of marriage and too much toward ceremony.

[Jon Bemis]

What would happen if we viewed tent-sharing as a relationship that automatically brings into play all the moral obligations that accompany a legal marriage, such as fidelity and life-time commitment?

I'm not sure that many of those forgo traditional marriage and who are "tent making" are really into the fidelity and life time commitment thing. I have friends who are living together but aren't willing to marry because they're not sure yet they are ready for that kind of commitment, so even though we may view it that way, it doesn't mean that those who are in those relationships will.

[Marsha Lynn]

IMHO an adherence to contemporary religious views of marriage (have the wedding ceremony, no matter how small) is a part of holding oneself above reproach.

Absolutely. What I'm pondering is what view we should take toward those who fail to do so. Is "casual sex" an oxymoron or not? Once two people have come together in physical union have they crossed a line that binds them together? Is marriage a civil union at its most basic or does a sexual relationship usher two people into a "marriage" relationship that brings with it a moral obligation of fidelity and commitment? Would we be better off as a society if we regarded any two people in a sexual relationship as married in the eyes of God? Leaving out the wedding puts couples out of step with proper society, but does it free them from the "to have and to hold, forsaking all others" responsibilities that come with marriage?

I don't know the answers to these questions. Society says that a man who fathers a child is responsible for that child whether or not he marries the mother. Why doesn't society place some responsibility on a person who renders another person no longer a virgin?

I know it's not going to happen in society as a whole, but what attitude should you and I have toward such people? Should we encourage them to end the relationship if they don't want to get the piece of paper making it official? Should we insist they not share a bed in our homes? Or should we encourage them to be faithful to their mate and to officially register and commit to the union that is already happening?

[Shea Zellweger]

I know it's not going to happen in society as a whole, but what attitude should you and I have toward such people? Should we encourage them to end the relationship if they don't want to get the piece of paper making it official? Should we insist they not share a bed in our homes? Or should we encourage them to be faithful to their mate and to officially register and commit to the union that is already happening?

I'm personally inclined toward the latter.

[Marsha Lynn]

I'm not sure that many of those forgo traditional marriage and who are "tent making" are really into the fidelity and life time commitment thing. I have friends who are living together but aren't willing to marry because they're not sure yet they are ready for that kind of commitment, so even though we may view it that way, it doesn't mean that those who are in those relationships will.

So your friends think that as long as they don't say any vows they can call it quits at any time. No commitment, no obligation. Do you agree that avoiding formal commitment allows them the same freedom as people who are not in a sexual relationship? How would you counsel a friend who came to you and said he was walking away from his live-in girlfriend because of "irreconcilable differences"? Would you take a different approach than for someone breaking up with a girlfriend with whom there had been no sexual intimacy?

[Marsha Lynn]

I think some do what some want and redefining marriage conditions won't change that, but does that mean that when they break up from as you write "shacking up" we will view that as a divorce? Or God will view that as a divorce?

I don't know. Other than legal ramifications, what are the differences between divorce and the break-up of a cohabiting couple? Are the emotional consequences any different?

[Hans Deventer]

I don't know. Other than legal ramifications, what are the differences between divorce and the break-up of a cohabiting couple? Are the emotional consequences any different?

I doubt it.

[Paul DeBaufer]

What I'm pondering is what view we should take toward those who fail to do so. Is "casual sex" an oxymoron or not? Once two people have come together in physical union have they crossed a line that binds them together? Is marriage a civil union at its most basic or does a sexual relationship usher two people into a "marriage" relationship that brings with it a moral obligation of fidelity and commitment? Would we be better off as a society if we regarded any two people in a sexual relationship as married in the eyes of God? Leaving out the wedding puts couples out of step with proper society, but does it free them from the "to have and to hold, forsaking all others" responsibilities that come with marriage?

I don't know the answers to these questions. Society says that a man who fathers a child is responsible for that child whether or not he marries the mother. Why doesn't society place some responsibility on a person who renders another person no longer a virgin?

I know it's not going to happen in society as a whole, but what attitude should you and I have toward such people? Should we encourage them to end the relationship if they don't want to get the piece of paper making it official? Should we insist they not share a bed in our homes? Or should we encourage them to be faithful to their mate and to officially register and commit to the union that is already happening?

I, personally, feel that when a woman and a man move in together that they should be committed to one another in a relationship described in Genesis 2: Then the man said,
‘This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called Woman,*
for out of Man* this one was taken.’
24Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. 25And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.

and Ephesians 5, and especially verse 25 which, in my mind, points to Philippians 2:5-8 the kenosis passage.

Far too often we (the church) shun people who live together without the "benefit" of a civil contract. I think that this is a shame and an act of unlove.

Does a sexual union constitute a marriage? I think that the biblical witness say Yes. 1 Cor. 6:16 is suggestive, 16Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? , when connected with the context in Genesis this One Flesh is a marriage. So, while in my preChristian life I had "casual sex" I now believe that for believers, at the very least, there is no such thing, not biblically anyway.

So, I encourage those who chose to become one flesh without the benefit of state recognition to be as fully committed as those who "we" recognize as married (although in this day in this society, I would hope that they are more committed than the 50 percentile of marrieds, both within and without the church who do not fully commit and enter into the "marriage" hastily and unprepared.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I don't know. Other than legal ramifications, what are the differences between divorce and the break-up of a cohabiting couple? Are the emotional consequences any different?

No. Not in my experience. the emotional response is the same, the toll is the same.

[Ian Gentles]

Its a joining with commitment, all cultures differ, I happy with our western chritian mode!

[Jon Bemis]

So your friends think that as long as they don't say any vows they can call it quits at any time. No commitment, no obligation. Do you agree that avoiding formal commitment allows them the same freedom as people who are not in a sexual relationship? How would you counsel a friend who came to you and said he was walking away from his live-in girlfriend because of "irreconcilable differences"? Would you take a different approach than for someone breaking up with a girlfriend with whom there had been no sexual intimacy?

I think they view it as less commitment, not no commitment. On the one hand, I wonder if they are not being completely honest with themselves because I don't think either of them would be OK with the other being unfaithful and so they do expect a deep level of commitment. Theirs seems to be a "we're taking this route just in case things don't work out" situation. I don't know that I agree they have the same level of freedom as those not in a sexual relationship in that sexual union creates a bond at least at some level. Regarding how I would counsel someone walking away from a relationship it would depend on many factors and so it would depend on the dynamics of the relationship.

[Benjamin Burch]

I'm personally inclined toward the latter.

I'm personally inclined to totally disagree. :tongue:

Okay, seriously though. I do disagree here. Our society is full of people getting married who shouldn't be doing so. Why should the church being adding pressure for this to take place?

I'm completely in favor of people being responsible and attempting to live up to the commitment which is supposed to come along with sex. However, I'm not in favor of compounding mistakes.

[Randy Wise]

I don't know. Other than legal ramifications, what are the differences between divorce and the break-up of a cohabiting couple? Are the emotional consequences any different?

I usually observe it goes from I love you to I hate you or I don't like you anymore. Maybe less battle on the splitting up of assets if no marriage vows were taken but if we include Gods perceptive I think its viewed the same as marriage and divorce.

From my persecutive as a christian who likes to proclaim Christ I would never live together as a couple without lawful marriage vows. That to me is part of living like a believer as part of the witness.

Randy

[Shea Zellweger]

I'm personally inclined to totally disagree. :tongue:

Okay, seriously though. I do disagree here. Our society is full of people getting married who shouldn't be doing so. Why should the church being adding pressure for this to take place?

I'm completely in favor of people being responsible and attempting to live up to the commitment which is supposed to come along with sex. However, I'm not in favor of compounding mistakes.

I got the impression that Marsha was specifically speaking about people who were living together in a sexually active, monogamous relationship. 'Round these parts, we have an expression that, when "Christianized," translates to approximately "Use the toilet or get out of the bathroom." If two people are in a relationship that has all the "trappings" of a marriage, then my general advice when asked is that they should make it official or stop playing house. I do hope they choose to make it official, because the entirety of both the biblical witness and Christian tradition (except perhaps recent developments), as well as multiple psychologists and other professionals tell us that the ideal situation is to be with one mate for life.

[Randy Wise]

The Lords words below suggests God views the "no vows" taken as no marriage. The words "living together" weren't used but below suggests to me that might have been the case. What do you think?

17"I have no husband," she replied.

Jesus said to her, "You are right when you say you have no husband. 18The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true."

[Shea Zellweger]

The Lords words below suggests God views the "no vows" taken as no marriage. The words "living together" weren't used but below suggests to me that might have been the case. What do you think?

17"I have no husband," she replied.

Jesus said to her, "You are right when you say you have no husband. 18The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true."

Well, in that particular English translation, I'd say you're probably right. However, it's actually a little fuzzier in the Greek. Man and Husband are the same word, so the text looks something like "You are right when you say you have no man/husband, the fact is, you have had five men/husbands, and the man/husband you have now is not your man/husband. What you have said is quite true."

There are a couple instances that appear a little more certain than the others, for example the first time Jesus uses the word it seems to be pretty clearly "husband," but on the whole the text isn't clear, mostly because the language did not separate between "your man" and "your husband" (or "your woman" and "your wife"). According to the culture of the time, however, it's very likely that either the woman or the man she was with was married to someone else, since two single people living together in such a manner would have been an act of marriage in that culture.

[Marsha Lynn]

I got the impression that Marsha was specifically speaking about people who were living together in a sexually active, monogamous relationship.

You're right, Shea.

I have developed a personal theology coming out of the injunction to "act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God" that says I am responsible for conforming my own actions to a standard of righteousness. Toward others, I am called to show mercy. In all, I need to recognize that I am not the world's judge. Each person is responsible to God and I don't need to add my condemnation to the natural consequences of sin. (I know there are portions of scripture that would say I am indeed responsible for correcting others but in balancing the various messages of the Bible I have concluded that the world has more than enough correctors for those living in sin and will not suffer overly much if I am guilty of showing too much grace and mercy.)

So ... suppose a couple who are living together in poverty (can't afford a wedding*) are traveling and ask to spend a night at my house because they can't afford a motel. My sense of justice says that I need to offer hospitality to them. I also need to be merciful to them while maintaining my own integrity. Suddenly, I'm in a sticky situation. Does my own sense of righteousness and integrity demand that I call their relationship a non-marriage and say, "Yes, you can stay at my house but I will provide separate sleeping quarters for you and expect you to live the righteous life of unmarried people in my house"? Or do I recognize that they have united their bodies in the act of marriage and treat them as I would a married couple, recognizing the irrevokable nature of the decision they have made in moving in together? Do I send a more potent message by regarding their relationship as an unofficial marriage, denying their position that what they are doing does not constitute marriage so long as they don't have a marriage license?

One thing I have intentionally left out of the discussion to this point is the impact of my decision on any young observers. However, eventually that will become a huge factor. What sort of message does recognizing a live-in relationship as an unofficial ("unblessed") marriage send to my children? Does it make them see a wedding as optional or does it make them more aware of the futility of denying the bindings that come with any sexual relationship and entering "marriage" without state and church sanction?

Marsha

*Those who can afford to perhaps marry too quickly and divorce just as quickly. Those who can't afford a nice wedding tend to go the other way, waiting way past the time when more prosperous people would have thrown a wedding simply because they don't want to give up wedding dreams and settle for a "cheap" wedding. I'm not sure the "wedding" group as a whole takes their marriage vows any more seriously for having thrown a party, although that group also includes those who do indeed take the vows seriously and statistically has a lower "split" rate.

[Marsha Lynn]

Okay, seriously though. I do disagree here. Our society is full of people getting married who shouldn't be doing so.

I'll disagree with this. I think our society is full of people who go into marriage with too few resources to maintain the relationship. Even "Mr. Right" and "Miss Absolutely Wonderful" (soon to become "Absolutely Right" ;) ) are going to eventually come to a point where they realize they made a big mistake in thinking they could spend the rest of their lives together. At that point, it's not the marriage that was a mistake. They simply need more resources than society is offering them to get through the tough times. Whether or not marriage vows have been said makes no difference if they haven't developed enough integrity to honor those vows when what they really want is to call it quits like "everyone else" is doing.

Marsha

[Paul DeBaufer]

The Lords words below suggests God views the "no vows" taken as no marriage. The words "living together" weren't used but below suggests to me that might have been the case. What do you think?

17"I have no husband," she replied.

Jesus said to her, "You are right when you say you have no husband. 18The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true."

true, but neither does He tell her to move out, break off the relationship, or get married.

[Randy Wise]

true, but neither does He tell her to move out, break off the relationship, or get married.

I think He was seeking the "Lost" not the righteous.


Jesus did made a comment on what I believe was a sign from Zacchaeus of 'sincere' repentance.


As below

1Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. 2A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. 3He wanted to see who Jesus was, but being a short man he could not, because of the crowd. 4So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.
5When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today." 6So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.

7All the people saw this and began to mutter, "He has gone to be the guest of a 'sinner.' "

8But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, "Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount."

9Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost."

[Benjamin Burch]

I got the impression that Marsha was specifically speaking about people who were living together in a sexually active, monogamous relationship. 'Round these parts, we have an expression that, when "Christianized," translates to approximately "Use the toilet or get out of the bathroom." If two people are in a relationship that has all the "trappings" of a marriage, then my general advice when asked is that they should make it official or stop playing house. I do hope they choose to make it official, because the entirety of both the biblical witness and Christian tradition (except perhaps recent developments), as well as multiple psychologists and other professionals tell us that the ideal situation is to be with one mate for life.

Thanks. I agree.

[Chris Yates]

Is it possible that we've let the secular (state) definition of marriage co-opt a proper understanding of Christian marriage? It seems that many of the examples above indicate that the definitions seem to blur together.

It solves alot of problems, logistical and otherwise, to keep the legal aspects of marriage seperate from the part the church blesses and condones. For example, I don't think the issue of the state allowing homosexual marriages needs to necessarily dictate what the church blesses and condones (regardless of your feelings on homosexual marriage), except that we've not kept the two separate enough... When Christian marriage is bound to state sponsored legal marriage, it creates all kinds of problems.

I think we should redeem the concept of Christian marriage so that it means something for a couple to express their love for and committment to, one another, in the context of a Christisan community, and for that committment to be validated by that same community.

Seperately, whether before, or after, the couple can and should get their union blessed by the state for legal reasons...

It's in that context that I think the church can find a way to define what Christian marriage is or isn't, without all of the complications of what the state says.

:)

[David Troxler]

Marriage is the commitment of two people to enter into a relationship like the one Christ has with the Church - one of fidelity and self-giving love.

I think we begin to lose the context of marriage when we separate it from the model on which it is built - that of God's love.

Ryan, this leaves a loop-hole big enough to drive a fleet of trucks through, and is the crux of the matter affecting other Christian faith communities.

If you were to limit the "two-people" to one man and one woman, I would be more inclined to support.

dave t

[Glenn Messer]

Marriage is the commitment of two people to enter into a relationship like the one Christ has with the Church - one of fidelity and self-giving love.

I think we begin to lose the context of marriage when we separate it from the model on which it is built - that of God's love.

And both have the expectation of "new creation"

[Todd Erickson]

I think that it's easy for theologians to sit around trying to define what marriage is in a way that makes them comfortable. Frankly though, I think for most people, marriage is something that you do so that you don't have to go through life alone, to help support you throughout your life, and perhaps have children with. And maybe have sex, and support the Cialis/Viagra industry.

I think that you'd be hard pressed to go to people and say "unless you think of your marriage as a mutual act of new creation and worship, then..." That's mostly likely to be really offensive, especially since those people have often not hit the point on their own where they're anywhere close to that.

We're warping all sorts of cultural and modern theological models into our definitions here, and in some fashion, doing exactly the sort of thing that makes people really not want to have anything to do with theology (unless they have something to prove).

[Kazimiera Fraley]

sorry posted to the wrong thread

[Ryan Scott]

Ryan, this leaves a loop-hole big enough to drive a fleet of trucks through, and is the crux of the matter affecting other Christian faith communities.

If you were to limit the "two-people" to one man and one woman, I would be more inclined to support.

dave t


That's precisely why the inclusion of the congregation is vitally important. A congregation needs to be able to say, "we don't think this relationship represents what it should," no matter what the gender of the participants.

[Kami Tuenning]

... I think our society is full of people who go into marriage with too few resources to maintain the relationship.... They simply need more resources than society is offering them to get through the tough times.

Marsha


Marsha, I have highlighted a couple of your comments, isolated from their text. When you look at those two phrases, I have to ask myself; "What resources are necessary and when did it become necessary for society to offer resources for them?" I am not being facetious, but your discussion sounds like we are discussing a social service branch of our government rather than GOD, the author of marriage, and His church?"

When did God become not sufficient in sustaining marriages? In the spirit of love and dialogue, could you please enumerate your list of resources and tools that society is responsible for giving couples?

[Marsha Lynn]

Marsha, I have highlighted a couple of your comments, isolated from their text. When you look at those two phrases, I have to ask myself; "What resources are necessary and when did it become necessary for society to offer resources for them?" I am not being facetious, but your discussion sounds like we are discussing a social service branch of our government rather than GOD, the author of marriage, and His church?"

When did God become not sufficient in sustaining marriages? In the spirit of love and dialogue, could you please enumerate your list of resources and tools that society is responsible for giving couples?

The timing of your question is interesting. I just came in from a camping trip. There were nine of us -- two married couples, five singles. My husband and I have been married 32 years, the other couple 27 years. This discussion somehow became a topic of conversation in the form, "Why should you get married?" There were a lot of laughs as one of the young singles grilled the married people about their early years and how marriage works. Somewhere along the line the message was passed along that the secret to a long marriage is "tolerance." ;) I'm sure many would disagree with that message, however, the words were actually not nearly so loud as the long-term marriage relationships on display as we all set up housekeeping together (in five tents and a common "kitchen" area) for the weekend and worked and played together.

Resources for marriage are not the responsibility of the government. What young marrieds need are other people -- mentors, examples, supporters, cheerleaders. How many times does someone struggling in their marriage turn to their friends and run into advice to get out for the sake of their own sanity rather than encouragement to persevere? That's because their friends have all been divorced or are at least holding that option open if things don't work out for them. Where are the mentors who can tell young couples about the tough times and the blessings of getting through them and growing old together? There simply aren't enough people in our society who know how to maintain a long-term marriage relationship and can pass on those skills to the next generation. It's frightening to realize how few resources we as a society have to offer in that area.

Marsha

[Kami Tuenning]

The timing of your question is interesting. I just came in from a camping trip. There were nine of us -- two married couples, five singles. My husband and I have been married 32 years, the other couple 27 years. This discussion somehow became a topic of conversation in the form, "Why should you get married?" There were a lot of laughs as one of the young singles grilled the married people about their early years and how marriage works. Somewhere along the line the message was passed along that the secret to a long marriage is "tolerance." ;) I'm sure many would disagree with that message, however, the words were actually not nearly so loud as the long-term marriage relationships on display as we all set up housekeeping together (in five tents and a common "kitchen" area) for the weekend and worked and played together.

Resources for marriage are not the responsibility of the government. What young marrieds need are other people -- mentors, examples, supporters, cheerleaders. How many times does someone struggling in their marriage turn to their friends and run into advice to get out for the sake of their own sanity rather than encouragement to persevere? That's because their friends have all been divorced or are at least holding that option open if things don't work out for them. Where are the mentors who can tell young couples about the tough times and the blessings of getting through them and growing old together? There simply aren't enough people in our society who know how to maintain a long-term marriage relationship and can pass on those skills to the next generation. It's frightening to realize how few resources we as a society have to offer in that area.

Marsha


Marsha,
Thank you for your gracious reply. Your response brought clarity to your first post and I quite agree. I have found that the the best way for churches to pass on these tools is to become intergenerational as a community. When we keep ages segregated, we lose the important mentoring that is essential in discipleship. I worked for a Lutheran Church where the Christian Ed Director was a master at bringing generations together. I believe that the secret to my 30 year marriage is doing what Elisabeth Elliot referred to as "dying a daily death". When a seed dies, it grows into something beautiful. When I am most unhappy, is when I am being most selfish.

[Roland Hearn]

Under Australian law two people living together have exactlly the same responsibilities and recognition as a married couple. They are in the eyes of the law married -it is termed a defacto relationship. Seperation has the same legal ramifications as divorce.

I have come to believe that there is in fact a spiritual component to the human sexual act. There is a spiritual vulnerability that is perhaps the most significant component of human sexuality. It is the human experience closest to the spiritual relationship that exists between God and us, hence the stongly sexual language used in scripture to talk about the connectedness. It is that spirituality that is violated and distorted in casual sexual relationships. It is not distorted in a couple that are together as married couple living faithfully and with intgrity toward each other but without a ceremony. Ceremonies are wonderful but also can fall into our pathological need to control.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Ceremonies are wonderful but also can fall into our pathological need to control.

I like this.

[Marsha Lynn]

I'm not the only one asking questions about marriage. Keith Drury addressed the subject in this week's column (http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/two-stage-marriage.htm).

[John Reilly]

Marriage is the commitment of two people to enter into a relationship like the one Christ has with the Church - one of fidelity and self-giving love.

I think we begin to lose the context of marriage when we separate it from the model on which it is built - that of God's love.

God's love being agape but also God created al love expressions such as eros, philia, storge, and in the hebrew, hesed. Love is at least five dimensional incorporating all these loves. People who enter into relationships engage one of more of these five loves. Those who enter into marriae engage with convenant love, hesed. Those who engage in eros, philia, storge, but not hesed are incomplete in the whole experience. I believe Chrisitan marriage is a sacramental convenant. I think the reformation went too far reducing the sacraments from seven to two. Marriage, as the ultimate relationship of love, witnesses of Christ's love for the church.

[Dale Cozby]

Sure. But how does this relate to Marsha's post?

When we come to Christ we are told to be baptized. But what if someone doesn't want to make that public testimony?
Can I go in my room and take a shower and call it a baptism?
Can I take bread and wine into my room and call it communion?
Can I take a woman into my bed and call it a marriage? Can I then kick her out and get another and another and another each time calling it a marriage to her?
Does community or tradition play an important part in defining what is and isn't a valid marriage like baptism, and communion?

On the redefining issue....
If I take a women into my bed how many times do I have to consummate the relationship before we call it a marriage? Once, more than once? a few weeks worth?
does that mean a guy that sleeps with 1000 women has a thousand wives? or a women a 1000 husbands? Or do we just need to live under the same roof for a few days?
I think we should stick with centuries of traditional church doctrine on this one. I too think marriage should have been left as a sacrament.

Just food for thought....

[Hans Deventer]

When we come to Christ we are told to be baptized. But what if someone doesn't want to make that public testimony?

Then (s)he is still saved.


Can I go in my room and take a shower and call it a baptism?

I've heard it can even be done with sand if no water is present.


Can I take bread and wine into my room and call it communion?

Yes. It is communion with the Lord. You're missing a part, but not the most crucial one. And you certainly do not need ordained clergy to have a valid communion. Stupid tradition :mad:


Can I take a woman into my bed and call it a marriage?

You don't need to call it that way but God will consider you as such anyway.


Can I then kick her out and get another and another and another each time calling it a marriage to her?

Yes you can but than all that is written about divorce applies. And God hates that. As you should know.


Does community or tradition play an important part in defining what is and isn't a valid marriage like baptism, and communion?

It plays a role. But not to the extent that it defines it. That's what the Scriptures do. We're not Roman Catholics who put tradition above Scripture, are we? Or do you claim we should also believe the pope is infallible, Mary was immaculately conceived, was born without original sin, remained a virgin ever after and went to heaven like Elijah? After all we should stick with centuries of church doctrine, right? Or is that just Nazarene church doctrine? In that case, we don't even HAVE centuries of it :smilies1722:


On the redefining issue....
If I take a women into my bed how many times do I have to consummate the relationship before we call it a marriage?

Once.


Once, more than once? a few weeks worth?
does that mean a guy that sleeps with 1000 women has a thousand wives? or a women a 1000 husbands?

It means he has divorced 999 times.


Or do we just need to live under the same roof for a few days?

I'm sorry?


I think we should stick with centuries of traditional church doctrine on this one. I too think marriage should have been left as a sacrament.

I don't, though I definitely see it as something that can work that way. But if we call it a sacrament it works only to enforce power structures and control by the church. That one won't fly anymore. And certainly not with me.


Just food for thought....

Just some reactions. I'm not into letting tradition define too much. Dangerous stuff. I'm more the deconstructing kind so that you know that what is left has a reason, in stead of doing something for the sake of tradition.

BTW, I don't have a clue how Marsha's post is or isn't related, that's too long ago.

[Todd Erickson]

It's interesting how centuries of church doctrine (and it is on centuries, not millenia) outweighs millenia of actual practice.

[Tami Martin]

It's interesting how we have characterized those people who live together without the benefit of marriage. Interesting because I'm not sure I have ever known such a couple who were not completely serious when they started that relationship. But when they do what countless "Christian" couples have done and break up, we decide they were capricious and lustful and just engaging in some short amount of exciting sex so they can then move on to someone else.

I think it's only fair to mention that the Christian community engages in just that exact practice. The only difference is that they bless it with expensive ceremonies and then have to pay money to get out of it in order to go onto the next one.

I'd ask this...would you make a third-married couple sleep in separate beds if their first and second divorces weren't up to theological snuff? We spend so much time looking at ways to divide and separate who we will and will not love when God very simply tells us to love them all.

[Hans Deventer]

It's interesting how we have characterized those people who live together without the benefit of marriage.

My daughter has lived that way in the past. Not sure who "we" refers to?

[Todd Erickson]

My daughter has lived that way in the past. Not sure who "we" refers to?

Just because a generalization does not apply to you, does not mean that a large portion of the group you belong to doesn't own that statement.

[Hans Deventer]

Just because a generalization does not apply to you, does not mean that a large portion of the group you belong to doesn't own that statement.

Nor that I would not feel unhappy to be included in that company.

[Todd Erickson]

Nor that I would not feel unhappy to be included in that company.

I think that Tammy's point is that the church as a whole does not seem to hold married Christians (who want a divorce) to nearly as high a standard as unmarried non-Christians (who want to stop living together). Unless, of course, those married Christians are in the pastorate, in which case, their lives are over.

As per usual, this may play out very differently depending on what part of the world you're living in.

[Dale Cozby]

I think that Tammy's point is that the church as a whole does not seem to hold married Christians (who want a divorce) to nearly as high a standard as unmarried non-Christians (who want to stop living together). Unless, of course, those married Christians are in the pastorate, in which case, their lives are over.

As per usual, this may play out very differently depending on what part of the world you're living in.

I think you re correct Todd. No ceremony & no certificate to the church means "not married" ...but the church honestly cannot do anything about it. We have less authority to speak on this subject than ever before in the history of the church...IMHO.

It has been my observation that most young people raised in the church today would be offended and indignant if their pastor, minister or SS teacher even suggested that just moving in together was not the best way to proceed with a relationship. The loyalty levels of young people today to any church(even the one they were raised in) is so low that its leaders have no authority whatsoever to speak on this subject or several other "lifestyle choices" one can make.

On the other end of the relationship:
Divorce is so common place inside the church that the church holds no one(except ministers) accountable whatsoever. And if a church tried, it would result in the person just moving on to another congregation who wouldn't know and or wouldn't care they left their wife for the babysitter.

The only time the church engages in marital accountability is when its minister divorces or has a moral lapse. But that is because those rights and privileges are granted by a higher authority than the local congregation in the CotN. so i guess one could say we still have some minimum standard for leadership...even if not for membership.

About the only thing the church is granted permission to do is help pick up the pieces latter on after the train wreck of a bad relationship and its following divorce.

[Tami Martin]

My daughter has lived that way in the past. Not sure who "we" refers to?

Read Marsha's first post. That's the "we" I was referring to.

[Billy Cox]

The only time the church engages in marital accountability is when its minister divorces or has a moral lapse. But that is because those rights and privileges are granted by a higher authority than the local congregation in the CotN. so i guess one could say we still have some minimum standard for leadership...even if not for membership.

That's not entirely true. The pastor at my church asked someone who had been helping with the youth group to quit because his fiancee moved into the same house he was living in. It didn't matter whether anything dirty was going on.

So, yes...professional clergy are held to a higher standard, but they seem not to have any qualms about applying that standard wherever they have the power to do so.

The youth worker married his fiancee a few months later, but never came back to my home church or any other Nazarene church.

[Marsha Lynn]

That's not entirely true. The pastor at my church asked someone who had been helping with the youth group to quit because his fiancee moved into the same house he was living in. It didn't matter whether anything dirty was going on.

OK, I hesitate to touch this, but by "dirty" do you mean sexual? I somehow missed the "sex is dirty" message during my younger years even in the church -- off-limits for unmarried people, yes; "dirty" as a topic for jokes and chit-chat, yes; "dirty" in and of itself, no. I'm a little surprised to encounter that implication in your post, even if you're obliquely referring to the attitude of others.

In your opinion what would have been the very best response for the pastor in the situation you describe? Did he do the right thing? Was it really a higher standard for someone in paid ministry or would any church leader have been relieved of his or her leadership position?

[Marsha Lynn]

I think it's only fair to mention that the Christian community engages in just that exact practice. The only difference is that they bless it with expensive ceremonies and then have to pay money to get out of it in order to go onto the next one.

You know, I hear about how church people divorce as frequently as pagans, but I don't see it. Yes, there is divorce in the church, but not like there is in the culture in general. I remember only one time when I was shocked to hear the news of a divorcing couple and immediately thought, "Oh my! Who gets the church?" It's not often that people headed to divorce court are core members of a church.

(In that case, as the details came out, it became obvious that she got the old church and he needed to find a new one. She stayed in the church, eventually remarried, and both she and her previously-divorced husband now serve faithfully in leadership positions. I don't know what happened to him.)

At least here in the rural, conservative Midwest, divorce floats around the perimeters of the church, but seldom penetrates into the heart of it. We celebrate a lot of anniversaries in the church whereas I look around at people not involved in church and say, "Really? ONLY 50% of marriages end in divorce?" I'd put it closer to 90% for those with no support from being part of organized religion. How many 25th (or even 15th) anniversaries for a first marriage do you see celebrated by unchurched people?

[Todd Erickson]

All of the folks in our church who are over 60 are on at least their second marriage.

[Marsha Lynn]

All of the folks in our church who are over 60 are on at least their second marriage.

Were they committed Christians when their previous marriages ended? If there are no people in the church with a history of divorce, there's a good chance we're not reaching out like we should. That's different than having a marriage fall apart and end while both partners are committed, active church members. it happens, but surely not at the same rate as for those outside or on the edges of the church.