Last week I listed which I had given in a sermon. Since then, I’ve been taking a look at each affirmation, one by one. We’re up to the fifth:
Christian marriage and civil marriage are not the same
This is a concept that I’ve discussed before. I’ve also discussed what it would be like if the church had more control over divorce.
I just think we need to keep in mind that just because the government determines that a marriage has begun or ended, that doesn’t mean that the church has to agree. We don’t depend on judges and politicians to define for us what is and what isn’t marriage.
As I stated last week:
Christian marriage and civil marriage are not the same. They often occur at the same time in this country, but they aren’t the same. That’s why the government doesn’t involve the church in divorces. Much of the political wrangling about marriage has to do with property rights, not spiritual realities. No judge can tell the church what is and what isn’t marriage.
Personally, I’d love to see us use a system that is in place in many countries around the world, where the civil ceremony and the religious ceremony are completely separate one from the other. Until then, it’s just a matter of us remembering this affirmation.
Affirmation #5: Christian marriage and civil marriage are not the same
Tim, I don’t believe church history supports you on this affirmation. The essence of marriage is two people holding themselves forth to the world to be married to each other. The church, to my understanding, actually discouraged weddings because of the accompanying sinful behavior that typified them before eventually claiming marriage as a sacrament of the church and rehabilitating it. We in Churches of Christ finally escaped the theology that allowed us to tell legally married couples who had divorced prior partners that they were not married in God’s sight. Getting past that low point in our history took several generations. It would be a shame to go back to that failed theology. Conservatives may consider for now that gay marriages are sinful. But trying to deny that they are in fact marriages is wishful thinking. Shiite societies allow for temporary contractual heterosexual marriages. I believe they are bad for those societies but they are in fact marriages. We cannot rationally change facts and the fact is that each society chooses how to define marriage for that society.
Tim,
Your blog today raises two questions. One in your post and another in one of the links.
First, on the question of marriage, it is neither the church nor the civil government that sactions marriage. Jesus said, “What God hath joined together, let not man put assunder.” The marriage is an act of God which man has no right to define or disolve. It is one man and one woman for life according to scripture. No other definition is acceptable.
Second, one of the articles in the links raises a question of ecumunism. We must find a way for all those claiming Christ as their savior to become one. That is what Jesus prayed, that the world may believe God actually did send him. Christianity itself is responsible for the atheism and lack of faith in the world because we argue so much among ourselves. We must go back to the true restoration and reformation pleas: the Bible as the word of God, study, ansd tolerance until we come in the unity of the faith as described in Ephesians 4.
Notice, I do not intend this to be a law that I am laying down but a point at which to begin serious and open discussion. We must learn to discuss the word without laying down laws that can not be definitely defined by scripture. Commands of God are definite, but when we begin to talk about necessary inference and approved example we are treading on vague and uncertain ground.
Wes
Tim, what do you make of the examples of gay marriage in the early church? http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html
I’d hardly call the 8th century the “early church.” The earlier reference, from the 4th century, is ambiguous at best. And frankly, by the 4th century, you’re seeing a little bit of everything in what is called Christianity.
So what do I make of it? If I were trying to build a case where I had little to no evidence, I’d make a lot of it. If I were trying to be honest, I’d say it means almost nothing.
It does indicate, though, that gay marriage is not a “modern” thing, nor is it a product of a post-Christian society, nor a post modern worldview.
No, gay marriage is quite ancient, dating back to Bible times. It’s the widespread public acceptance of gay marriage, in society and in Christian circles, that is related to the things you mentioned.