Tag Archives: Marriage

Marriage: The minister as agent of the State

2 Replies

In talking about how church and State work together in creating marriages, I observed that a wedding is a unique moment, when the Christian minister becomes an agent of the State. It seems to me that we need to think long and hard about the implications of that.

Because what the minister is doing is not only a church function but a public function as well, the minister is open to State control in a new way. This is currently seen when governments (sometimes state, sometimes county) determine who can and can’t perform a marriage ceremony. Many places require that the minister have a certificate of ordination. Most ministers within churches of Christ don’t have such a certificate unless they’ve had one created specifically for this purpose. In other words, while not normally practicing ordination, they will do so (or pretend to have done so) to meet governmental requirements.

This is a small thing, I guess, but it seems to me that the subject could become quite complicated. To some degree, government decides now who can and cannot marry. If the minister is an agent of the State, could he not be compelled to marry whomever the government decides may be married? Couldn’t restrictions be placed on this public affair as to what can and cannot be said? Couldn’t the State decide many details about this public ceremony?

I’m not much into slippery slopes, so I don’t want to make this overly dramatic. Still, it bears some consideration. Once you agree to perform a legal function, a governmental function if you will, it seems to me that you’ve opened Pandora’s box.

I should state the obvious: I’m neither a lawyer nor did I get to play one in 12th grade English class when we had the mock trial based on “Enemy of the People.” Still, I’m beginning to have concerns about the wisdom of performing “official” weddings. What am I opening myself up to when I sign that wedding license?

Where church and State diverge: Marriage

6 Replies

Yesterday we talked about the overlap between the church and the State regarding marriage. There was a time when church and state were one, and this marriage (all puns intended) of civic and religious responsibilities made sense. Even when the two separated, they walked in the same direction for many years, so things still worked. That’s no longer the case.

Marriage in society in general and marriage within the Kingdom are two different things. We need to recognize that fact. It’s not just now becoming true with some places allowing gay couples to marry; it’s been true for a very long time.

Our society looks on marriage as a temporary state. It’s a contract with an easy escape clause. There is no stigma attached to marrying and divorcing multiple times. Couples join, and jokes are made about how long the union will last. That’s not the same marriage we teach in the Kingdom.

When couples exchange their vows in front of an Elvis impersonator in a Las Vegas chapel, that’s not Kingdom marriage. When couples sign prenuptial agreements before saying “I do,” that’s not our marriage. When a man and a woman decide to “tie the knot” after having their third child, that’s not Christian marriage. I could go on and on, but we need to recognize that society’s marriage and the church’s marriage are not the same. By joining the two, we aren’t strengthening society; we’re weakening the church.

Even if the two marriages continue to be intertwined, we need to teach our children the difference between the two. We need to teach our adults, for that matter. The State isn’t the church, and the church isn’t the State. We are citizens of the Kingdom of heaven and need to remember, no matter how judges rule and politicians legislate, we answer to our King. For us: “There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy.” (James 4:12)

For citizens of the Kingdom, marriage is what it has always been.

Where church and State overlap: Marriage

4 Replies

We’ve been discussing some, over the last few weeks, Christians and social issues. I wanted to take some time to talk about marriage.

For many, this issue became of importance when some began pressing for the legalization of same sex marriage. I think things have been in a mess far longer than that.

Many countries have a clear separation of civil and religious aspects when it comes to marriage. There is a civil ceremony, which is the legally binding act. There is a separate religious service, which allows each person to have a ceremony in accordance with their beliefs.

In the United States, we have the strange situation of church and State overlapping with one another. Unless I’m mistaken, a wedding is the only officially recognized act that a minister can perform. Baptisms have no legal status. Ministers take part in funerals, but the State gives that no particular validation.

What’s even more puzzling, a minister can marry you, but he has no say in divorce proceedings. In what way does that make sense?

This has gone on for so long that the church accepts the situation as normal. It’s not. The State has no say in who can and can’t be baptized. The State doesn’t determine who is eligible to take the Lord’s Supper. If we believe marriage to be a religious act, we should not align ourselves with the State when it comes time for a wedding.

Would it be helpful if we switched to a system of dual ceremonies, a civil ceremony and a religious one? That would free the church to set its own standards and relieve ministers of the burden of being an agent of the State in any capacity. It would also empower the church, I think, to better address the question of divorce.

Or how we can we better separate that which is holy from that which is not?

photo by grietgriet on morguefile.com

Speaking of marriage and Ephesians

Leave a reply

“Do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil.” (Ephesians 4:26-27)
The best advice I ever got about marriage came from the Bible. Whatever it is, work it out before you go to sleep.

Submission and sacrifice

Leave a reply

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22-24) I said the other day that if men did needlepoint, this would be a popular piece put on the walls of our houses. And as I said yesterday, those that want to say that Paul was a woman-hater find strong evidence in these verses.
If they take them out of context.
In context, these verses tell a different story. We’ve already seen that Paul tells all Christians to submit to one another. Then he directs these words to women. But he doesn’t stop there, and neither should we or we’ll come away with a misconception. Look at what follows here in Ephesians 5: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.” (Ephesians 5:25-33)
Husbands have to love their wives as Christ loved the church. In case someone doesn’t get the point, Paul specifies: Christ gave himself up for the church. Men ought to love wives as they love their own bodies. Husbands must love their wives as they love themselves. If you really think about what those statements mean, they transform our view of Paul’s previous words.
Husbands have to love their wives sacrificially. Christ died for the church to show his love; men need to strive for that kind of love. They have to put their wives’ interests ahead of their own. They have be willing to set aside what they want for what their wife wants. When a man lives that way, any woman would be willing to respect and submit to him. Why not? Why not submit to someone who is always going to try and do what is best for you, who is going to try and do what you want whenever he can? The problem comes when we ask women to submit to a selfish man, to a man who hasn’t dedicated himself to loving her sacrificially. That’s when the relationship becomes one-sided, that’s when submission becomes unfair.
Paul says it clearly there at the end, if we’re listening: “However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.” The respect comes after men have done what they are supposed to do. It only makes sense in that context. Out of that context, it’s outdated and chauvinistic. In context, it’s a beautiful way to run a relationship.