Marriage without the government

Status
Not open for further replies.
Caution is needed here. The state's definition of marriage varies from state to state and from year to year. That is why I am hesitant to make any blanket statements about wrong or right. This is an issue that must be handled on a case by case basis. Do those of you in states that recognize homosexual unions as 'marriage' believe that you are married by the same definition?
 
The ecclesiastical view back in Scotland, in the Reformational days of the 16-17th centuries, was that marriage is a civil ordinance.

We are not Roman. Marriage isn't a sacrament. However, the progressively deeper entanglement of the State with our cultural factors makes for an "ungodly" mess.

I agree with Adam that state-licensing has only made our lives worse. However, this is God's judgment on society and culture that chooses to reject him. We live with this mess because the culture demands regulation (explicitly or implicitly) when men will not self-regulate under God. Self-government works its way out in cultural expression. Common-law, in other words, which judges used to be able to recognize and apply. And judges needed not to be purely State-sponsored representatives. (The fact that we still elect judges in many places reflects this bottom-up mentality.)

Bottom line: if you are law-abiding, then you carry out your station according to the law. Unless that earthly law obligates you to break God's law you must obey it in order not violate Rom.13. (not merely inconveniences you, or your life is harder because your "rights" are not being recognized--in many cases, God in his providence takes our "rights" away by bad government because we are such rebels).

Unless one has in fact seceeded from the State (and the church and minister along with him) I do not see how we may justly hand-wave the totalitarian intrusions of the State. If I, as a minister of Christ, agree to marry someone, I am offering my services in conformity to the social-order of the community I live in. In other words, I don't believe I am free to unilaterally choose to confirm a marriage that is being asserted outside the civil order. Especially if the ends being pursued by the marrying persons are nakedly material--the union they prefer (outside the licensing) is to be characterized with respect to the State as "unmarried" for the legal advantages.

Much better, in my opinion, to disadvantage oneself and suffer for Christ, rather than try to get the Church's approval for marriage on one hand, and the State's privileges for the unmarried at the same time. There's a materialistic bent here.

If the State turns around and recognizes, or the church recognizes, that a married estate exists de facto, each party is doing so for other ends than offering services for the establishment of that estate.

On the other hand, if it becomes manifestly the case that good social-order is dependent on my services to confirm a marriage, and the Church recognizes I am not acting as a "lone-ranger," that is when the church becomes the one institution committed to preserving recognizable marriage at all, I think I would gladly perform such a ceremony without a license (since the State is unlikely to be much in the licensing business at that point anyway).
 
Many good thoughts here. But it does seem to me we need to be careful before we embrace the idea of marriage that's recognized by the church but not by the larger society (that is, in our case, the state). Even though marriage is of God, I can't think of a biblical example of people whom God considered married while the larger society went unaware of this, except for obviously sinful examples like Abram and Sarai in Egypt. Part of the idea behind marriage is that it's public, legal and enforceable by society. To secretly marry is to make a lesser commitment, one without the social and legal ramifications that marriage should entail.

In many states, there might also be risks for a Christian whose marriage was not state-sanctioned. What if a spouse you thought was a believer is unfaithful and deserts you? There may be no legal recourse to prove fault. No leverage in suing for custody of children or monitary support. So where the state is willing to enforce consequences for matrimonial unfathfulness (and not all states do anymore), there are advantages to having the state sanction marriage.
 
One thought that may be in order is to share some thoughts from the early German Lutherans regarding magistrates that tamper with marriage. They argued that the magistrates who tamper with marriage against the dictates of natural law are to be considered as devils incarnate rather than lawful magistrates.
 
This reminded me of an article I had read by Michael Pearl (disclaimer alert - I know probably a lot of people on here wouldn't agree with him on many many points - I mainly read his site because he and his wife have some excellent child training advice that has been helpful to us),
Article: Holy Matrimony - No Greater Joy Ministries

If you skim to the bottom part of the article, he talks about getting married without state marriage liscenses, and says that (at least in his state) it has worked to draw up a "marriage contract," and file that with the courthouse. He says his status and his children's (who have been married this way) has never been contested (I assume that means they identify themselves as married on tax returns, etc).

Personally I don't feel that using a state marriage licenses necessarily gives the State authority over my marriage the way he purports, but I thought it was possibly an interesting alternative.
 
On the other hand, if it becomes manifestly the case that good social-order is dependent on my services to confirm a marriage, and the Church recognizes I am not acting as a "lone-ranger," that is when the church becomes the one institution committed to preserving recognizable marriage at all, I think I would gladly perform such a ceremony without a license (since the State is unlikely to be much in the licensing business at that point anyway).

Great stuff, as usual, Rev Buchanan. At what point does it become obvious that the church is the only institution committed to preserving 'recognizable' marriage? Aren't we getting close?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top