Marrying Cohabitating Couple?

[TheBoringBaptist]

Hello PB members! I have a question pertaining to marriage. If there was a man and woman who were dating and then decided to cohabit, should the pastor marry them? If not, what would be the next required steps in order for the couple to get married? If you're a pastor, how would you handle the situation? (Sorry for my bad English)

(If General Discussions is not the right forum for this question, please move it into the appropriate forum space. Thank you in advance)

 

[TheInquirer]

In the past, I’ve heard pastors demand a period of time of separation before allowing the marriage. However, Scripture says marriage is not to be forbidden so I would say continuously call them to repentance but proceed with marriage plans at the same time. If they are members of the church, then failure to repent would be a church discipline process.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It seems to me a question of propriety and wisdom.

Consider two persons (opposite sexes) who profess the Faith, but whose choices and acts bear witness to their lawlessness. Are they members of any church? Has their own pastor refused to conduct their ceremony, on account of their unrepentant state and deliberate sin? These, it seems to me, are not good candidates until or unless they have repented, acknowledging their haste to satisfy lust in preference to the expressed will of God and his order. I should think it wise for such a couple to cease their cohabitation, for a season of celibacy; which a proper marriage will bring to an end as two repentant sinners seek a better path forward than the one they rashly and willfully demanded for themselves at first.

Consider two similar persons, but who in most every way (and by their testimony) are not believers, or are so distantly removed from the Christian faith that if they say they are Christians it is only because they need a religious affiliation for a non-eternal reason. A pastor might see this situation either: 1) one which he says to the couple, "I cannot in good conscience marry those who are, in my judgment, living sinfully already." Or 2) the situation may be one which he says to the couple, "It is better for you, who do not profess any religion, yet to be married rather than continue as you are."

The reality is: in neither condition--cohabiting or marriage--will these two unbelievers be living a life that is pleasing to God. Neither can they repent first, acting better by ceasing to cohabit but remaining unbelievers, and therefore enter marriage in a more proper manner. Objectively, if living together they ought to be married, even if unbelievers; so in this case, my preference would be to see them married. They have not become thereby more acceptable to God; yet, in terms of what is better for society they have exchanged the worse for the better. But in terms of pleasing God, they have exchanged one God-dishonoring lifestyle for another God-dishonoring lifestyle just more respectable.

The pastor must decide if he is willing to do the work of authorization, according to the laws of his State, even for people who are not members of his church or under the church's oversight and discipline. He may choose to do the work, hoping that the resulting condition for the couple will open doors of witness respecting Christ and the gospel. He may choose to not do the work, and try to witness of their need first to come to Christ; repenting of this and all sin, only afterward coming to him for a marriage ceremony. I don't think either choice is automatically correct.

Marriage condition is the one true and proper prerequisite for living and sleeping together in a conjugal union. Better marriage than cohabitation. But professing believers must be called to repent, admit their error, and be reconciled to God--not paper over their error with an ex post facto cleanup that requires no testimony of fault on their part. Unbelievers, if they will be assisted by a Christian pastor to marry, are hardly good candidates to simply urge to follow a step-by, orderly process which they never preferred. The moral law, unless convicting them already of adultery (hence the marriage), is hardly going to be followed honestly in stages. So, get them married and marginally improve the situation.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Hello PB members! I have a question pertaining to marriage. If there was a man and woman who were dating and then decided to cohabit, should the pastor marry them? If not, what would be the next required steps in order for the couple to get married? If you're a pastor, how would you handle the situation? (Sorry for my bad English)

(If General Discussions is not the right forum for this question, please move it into the appropriate forum space. Thank you in advance)

I hope I don't derail the thread by pointing out that marriages are a civil matter, in which (in my opinion) pastors should not be involved at all. It is the realm of the magistrate to marry, as it is to issue lawful divorces and to wield the sword. The pastor should counsel them to cease living thus sinfully; to seek lawful marriage at the offices of the magistrate, but above all to repent of all their sins and be converted.
We only get into these "conundrums" when the church takes civil matters into her hands (or is allowed them by the magistrate as a holdover of establishmentarianism).
Hey, OP--we're neighbors! I didn't know there was an SBC congregation in Providence.

 

[RamistThomist]

I hope I don't derail the thread by pointing out that marriages are a civil matter, in which (in my opinion) pastors should not be involved at all.

Forgive me if I am missing the obvious, but should there be weddings in the church?

 

[TheBoringBaptist]

I hope I don't derail the thread by pointing out that marriages are a civil matter, in which (in my opinion) pastors should not be involved at all. It is the realm of the magistrate to marry, as it is to issue lawful divorces and to wield the sword. The pastor should counsel them to cease living thus sinfully; to seek lawful marriage at the offices of the magistrate, but above all to repent of all their sins and be converted.
We only get into these "conundrums" when the church takes civil matters into her hands (or is allowed them by the magistrate as a holdover of establishmentarianism).
Hey, OP--we're neighbors! I didn't know there was an SBC congregation in Providence.

Neat! Do other PB members believe that marriage is a civil matter? I know that some Christians believe that the Civil Magistrates should not have a hand in marriage, but its interesting seeing someone who thinks otherwise.

If I may be so bold, what do mean by, "pastors should not be involved at all"?

I didn't know there was an SBC congregation in Providence.

There is. I'm not apart of that one though. I currently attend Grace Bible Church in Cranston, RI. The SBC congregation that we're connected to is called Grace Harbor Church in Providence, RI. There is also another one called Faith Community Church that's also located in Providence, RI. I do live in Providence though.

Kind of funny how this small state works. I live in Providence, work at Quonset Point, but have to travel to Westerly for training, attend corporate worship in Cranston, but love to go to Seekonk, MA.

Forgive me if I am missing the obvious, but should there be weddings in the church?

I don't see why not.

 

[sgemmen9]

In the case where I turned down marrying a cohabiting couple, they showed unrepentance. This was one of the most challenging experiences I've encountered and they held it against me for many years. But I believe that the decision I and the elders made was a good one as they showed no signs of repentance and that was truly the issue. They'll either cling on to godly sorrow and be mad you told them you did something wrong or they'll embrace godly sorrow over their sin and do the right thing.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Neat! Do other PB members believe that marriage is a civil matter? I know that some Christians believe that the Civil Magistrates should not have a hand in marriage, but its interesting seeing someone who thinks otherwise.

If I may be so bold, what do mean by, "pastors should not be involved at all"?


There is. I'm not apart of that one though. I currently attend Grace Bible Church in Cranston, RI. The SBC congregation that we're connected to is called Grace Harbor Church in Providence, RI. There is also another one called Faith Community Church that's also located in Providence, RI. I do live in Providence though.

Kind of funny how this small state works. I live in Providence, work at Quonset Point, but have to travel to Westerly for training, attend corporate worship in Cranston, but love to go to Seekonk, MA.


I don't see why not.

By "pastors should not be involved at all," I mean that performing marriages is not one of the tasks to which they're called by God. The state allows them to do so, but God has not required it. It is not a church function.
@Ramist Thomist: If a church building is a convenient place for a wedding, sure, have it there. Or rent a ballroom from an hotel--the venue doesn't matter. When it goes sideways is when people think their wedding will be more acceptable to God if it's done in a church building, or by a minister (who's only acting, in this country, by authority from the civil government). There are those who think so.
Best case is, I think: go to the recorder's office with a couple of witnesses, sign papers, then go invite all your friends and family to a wedding feast. Eat. Drink. Do all the cultural things you surround such events with. But don't try to make it into a religious function.

 

[LightBringer]

I would say it depends - if they are un-repentant, then they need to be under church discipline. People have used the 'common law marriage' phrase to justify cohabiting without any formal ceremony of any kind. I knew a couple that did that. They were unrepentant until they separated. As far as I know the man still is not properly married.

 

[TheInquirer]

Is there any fear here of adding requirements or obstacles to marriage that God has not endorsed? Isn’t the teaching of Scripture to allow people to marry lest they burn with lust?

 

[Edward]

Is there any fear here of adding requirements or obstacles to marriage that God has not endorsed?

In the US (and in much of the world) the absence of a clergyman presents no barrier to marriage.

The better argument in favor is to ask where the preacher would draw the line. Is cohabitation (which might not include sex) a greater offense than fornication? Is it the public nature of the offense? (Although, let's face it, evidence of fornication sometimes becomes publicly apparent a few months after a marriage is contracted.)

 

[VictorBravo]

I don’t present my personal case as proper, God worked through us. My wife and I were happy pagans cohabiting for several years. Then we felt it proper to get married in a simple civil ceremony. A few years later God converted us almost simultaneously.

From that point on we embarked on an adventure learning Greek, Hebrew, and discerning what we later learned was the Reformed faith from devouring Scripture. Bibles open even while eating dinner.

Now I am a pastor and tend toward Bruce’s cautions. I’d add that I’d spend more time than what may be typical trying to spark love for God’s word in them.

 

[Ed Walsh]

I have a question pertaining to marriage. If there was a man and woman who were dating and then decided to cohabit, should the pastor marry them?

This is the gist of a post I would have made about 60 seconds after reading your question. I read most of the other posts, and I don't think anybody else suggested this. As a trained Elder in the OPC for over a decade, I think a customized solution might be in order.

• Does the couple know they've been doing wrong?
• Have they, on their own initiative, realized that they can no longer live together even for a day?

If the answers to the two questions above are yes, then relax. You already have them headed in the right direction. All they need now is somebody to point them there and tell them the rules of the King of the land they now enter.

If either or both of the questions are no, they are not ready for Christian marriage. If the couple, of their own accord, chooses to be married by the civil magistrate, recognize that they are legally married now in God's eyes, and we now consider them differently than we did before the marriage. However, this couple is not ready to answer the membership questions before the congregation. Maybe a month? Maybe a year? Maybe you'll never see them again.

 

[AngusD123]

I hope I don't derail the thread by pointing out that marriages are a civil matter, in which (in my opinion) pastors should not be involved at all. It is the realm of the magistrate to marry, as it is to issue lawful divorces and to wield the sword. The pastor should counsel them to cease living thus sinfully; to seek lawful marriage at the offices of the magistrate, but above all to repent of all their sins and be converted.
We only get into these "conundrums" when the church takes civil matters into her hands (or is allowed them by the magistrate as a holdover of establishmentarianism).

I disagree. Marriage vows are made to God primarily and involvement of the civil magistrate is of secondary importance. The Directory for Public Worship explains the reasons why a minister should be involved in marriages:

ALTHOUGH marriage be no sacrament, nor peculiar to the church of God, but common to mankind, and of publick interest in every commonwealth; yet, because such as marry are to marry in the Lord, and have special need of instruction, direction, and exhortation, from the word of God, at their entering into such a new condition, and of the blessing of God upon them therein, we judge it expedient that marriage be solemnized by a lawful minister of the word, that he may accordingly counsel them, and pray for a blessing upon them.

 

[Ed Walsh]

I disagree. Marriage vows are made to God primarily and involvement of the civil magistrate is of secondary importance.

I disagree just a bit with your "I disagree" statement.
Isn't marriage by default primarily under the civil magistrate's jurisdiction as a minister of God?

If the "civil magistrate (CM) is of secondary importance," it's a pretty close second.

1. The CM can annul an unlawful marriage.
2. The CM can refuse to grant a marriage license if one of the parties would be breaking God's Law to enter that marriage.
3. The CM has the authority to execute an adulterous partner.
4. The CM gives a monetary benefit in tax relief to married couples.
5. The bottom line is that the civil magistrate has jurisdiction

Do I Have a Common Law Marriage, and Will the Social Security Administration Acknowledge It?​

​

In some places in the United States, a couple can get married without a marriage license and without a civil or religious ceremony. This type of marriage is called a “common law marriage.” Knowing whether you are (or were) common law married and knowing how to prove it can be very important. Couples who are common law married enjoy all of the same benefits as couples who are married in a religious or civil ceremony.​

​

Today, eight states still allow common law marriage. Five states have enacted legislation to eliminate the right to enter into a common law marriage, but they still recognize common law marriages formed before a specified date. Pennsylvania is one of those five states. A couple no longer can enter into a common law marriage in Pennsylvania, but if you were common law married on or before Jan. 1, 2005, your marriage is still valid and recognized by the state. New Jersey does not recognize common law marriages.​

​

In Pennsylvania, a couple may claim to be common law married if there is clear and convincing evidence that the couple exchanged words, in the present tense, for the specific purpose of establishing the legal relationship of husband and wife. This exchange of words must have taken place on or before Jan. 1, 2005. There are no specific words that need to be spoken by the couple, but the purpose of the exchange of words must be very specific. A couple must state that they “are” married. An agreement by a couple that they “will get” married forms an engagement, not a common law marriage. A couple that has lived together for a long period of time is not necessarily common law married.​

​

Many people assume that if they live together for seven years or some other period of time, they can claim to be common law married. This is not true. A couple cannot prove the existence of a common law marriage simply by showing that they lived together, have children together, or own property together. That marriage is formed only by the exchange of words, or vows, clearly intended to establish that the couple has assumed the bonds of marriage.​

​

If one or both members of a couple are deceased, it may still be possible to establish that the couple was common law married. In those situations, Pennsylvania law recognizes that there may not be evidence that an exchange of words took place. When one or both members of a couple are deceased, the court may presume the existence of a common law marriage if there is sufficiently strong evidence that a couple lived together as husband and wife on a consistent basis and had a general and broad reputation of being married. That presumption is rebutted if there is evidence that the couple did not specifically agree to live as husband and wife.​

​

If you are (or were) common law married in Pennsylvania, you may be eligible for certain benefits from the U.S. Social Security Administration. The SSA acknowledges all common law marriages that were established in states that recognize them, such as Pennsylvania. The SSA even provides a list of items that must be provided to prove the existence of a common law marriage:​

​

If both spouses are living, each spouse must provide a statement affirming the marriage, and the spouse applying for benefits must provide a statement affirming the marriage from one of their own blood relatives and a statement affirming the marriage from one of their spouse’s blood relatives.​

​

If one spouse is no longer living, the spouse applying for benefits must provide a statement affirming the marriage, and two statements affirming the marriage from blood relatives of the deceased spouse.​

​

If both spouses are deceased, the person applying for benefits must provide a statement affirming the marriage from one blood relative of each spouse.​

​

All statements submitted to the SSA must be submitted on special forms (Statement Regarding Marriage or Statement of Marital Relationship) which are available at the Social Security office and on the Social Security Administration’s website.​

​

Common law marriage has the same effect as ceremonial marriage; the couple is married for all purposes. If you establish the existence of a valid common law marriage, you and your spouse may have rights to one another’s Social Security benefits and employment benefits, such as pension benefits. You and your spouse may also have rights to one another’s assets and debts. If you wish to terminate your common law marriage you will need to obtain a legal divorce from a court of competent jurisdiction. You cannot terminate your common law marriage in any other way. If you establish the existence of a common law marriage, and then your relationship ends, you cannot legally marry again unless you obtain a legal divorce.​

​

If you think that you may be married by common law or if you have questions on the topic, please contact one of the family law attorneys of Willig, Williams & Davidson by calling 215-656-3600.​

​

States With Full Common Law Marriage​

The following list of states recognize common law marriage:​

• Colorado
• District of Columbia
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Montana
• Oklahoma
• Pennsylvania (if created before Jan. 1, 2005)
• Rhode Island
• Texas

 

[TheBoringBaptist]

I would say it depends - if they are un-repentant, then they need to be under church discipline. People have used the 'common law marriage' phrase to justify cohabiting without any formal ceremony of any kind. I knew a couple that did that. They were unrepentant until they separated. As far as I know the man still is not properly married.

Nice profile picture by the way

 

[TheBoringBaptist]

This leads to ask another question. Would it be an issue for the church if two Christians who are members got married through "common law" marriage? (Don't know if worded that correctly)

Smaller question: Are two people who are married through "common law" married in God's eyes?

 

[Northern Crofter]

Isn't marriage by default primarily under the civil magistrate's jurisdiction as a minister of God?

What Biblical evidence would you point towards to demonstrate this?

The Directory for Public Worship explains the reasons why a minister should be involved in marriages:

And it's important to note that the DPW makes a distinction between marriages within and without the Church. While being a common institution in all human societies ("...no sacrament, nor peculiar to the church of God, but common to mankind, and of publick interest in every commonwealth..."), there is an additional layer of responsibility placed upon marriages in the Church where the couple "marry in the Lord" and thus "have special need of instruction, direction, and exhortation, from the word of God, at their entering into such a new condition, and of the blessing of God upon them therein, we judge it expedient that marriage be solemnized by a lawful minister of the word, that he may accordingly counsel them, and pray for a blessing upon them." (emphasis added) The DPW is not holding forth that all marriages should be solemnized by a minister, only those composed of professing Christians within the Body.

This leads to ask another question. Would it be an issue for the church if two Christians who are members got married through "common law" marriage? (Don't know if worded that correctly)

Smaller question: Are two people who are married through "common law" married in God's eyes?

Check out this recent thread: "What constitutes a biblical marriage?"

 

[DanSSwing]

Hello PB members! I have a question pertaining to marriage. If there was a man and woman who were dating and then decided to cohabit, should the pastor marry them? If not, what would be the next required steps in order for the couple to get married? If you're a pastor, how would you handle the situation? (Sorry for my bad English)

(If General Discussions is not the right forum for this question, please move it into the appropriate forum space. Thank you in advance)

I think we need to distinguish whether the issue is cohabitation or premarital sex. 99% of the time the former includes the latter, and even the 1% usually has at least the appearance of impropriety. But I can envision a case where, say, the woman still lives with her parents who have an Air BNB room in the back and normally rent that out, but they let the man stay there temporarily because he doesn't have any other good options, and keep a tight accountability on the situation. I'm thinking here of a case that would be little different from him living next door. Again, I'm not commending this case as ideal, but I don't think we can uniformly condemn it as sinful.

 

[TheBoringBaptist]

I think we need to distinguish whether the issue is cohabitation or premarital sex. 99% of the time the former includes the latter, and even the 1% usually has at least the appearance of impropriety. But I can envision a case where, say, the woman still lives with her parents who have an Air BNB room in the back and normally rent that out, but they let the man stay there temporarily because he doesn't have any other good options, and keep a tight accountability on the situation. I'm thinking here of a case that would be little different from him living next door. Again, I'm not commending this case as ideal, but I don't think we can uniformly condemn it as sinful.

Most of the time when people talk about cohabitation, they speak of it as what the Merriam webster dictionary defines it as, "to live together as or as if a married couple". I assumed people on PB see cohabitation this way and in my case of talking with secular folks, they also assume the same most of the time. And of course if two people are living together under the same roof as if they were married, then it would considered sin in Christian circles because then that would mean they are generally having sex.

The case you brought I think would be very rare and even then, I don't think many elders would be keen on the situation. I don't know. Perhaps others have dealt with the AirBNB situation and can speak on it, but I can't. I'm only a young man trying to understand how to apply biblical principles. Personally, as of now, my immature opinion would be that I think it unwise for the man and woman to cohabit in any case knowing the temptations that abound and of what Scripture states in 1 Thessalonians 5:22, "Abstain from every form of evil."

 

[darrellmaurina]

I think we need to distinguish whether the issue is cohabitation or premarital sex. 99% of the time the former includes the latter, and even the 1% usually has at least the appearance of impropriety. But I can envision a case where, say, the woman still lives with her parents who have an Air BNB room in the back and normally rent that out, but they let the man stay there temporarily because he doesn't have any other good options, and keep a tight accountability on the situation. I'm thinking here of a case that would be little different from him living next door. Again, I'm not commending this case as ideal, but I don't think we can uniformly condemn it as sinful.

Most of the time when people talk about cohabitation, they speak of it as what the Merriam webster dictionary defines it as, "to live together as or as if a married couple". I assumed people on PB see cohabitation this way and in my case of talking with secular folks, they also assume the same most of the time. And of course if two people are living together under the same roof as if they were married, then it would considered sin in Christian circles because then that would mean they are generally having sex.

The case you brought I think would be very rare and even then, I don't think many elders would be keen on the situation. I don't know. Perhaps others have dealt with the AirBNB situation and can speak on it, but I can't. I'm only a young man trying to understand how to apply biblical principles. Personally, as of now, my immature opinion would be that I think it unwise for the man and woman to cohabit in any case knowing the temptations that abound and of what Scripture states in 1 Thessalonians 5:22, "Abstain from every form of evil."

Malcolm and Dan are both right.

We do need to distinguish between evil and appearance of evil, particularly with people from non-Christian backgrounds who may never have thought through these issues.

We can, and should, take a hard stance against premarital sex. It's wrong. Period. And yes, there's about a 99 percent chance that a cohabiting couple is doing more than sharing an apartment.

But I remember, as a relatively new Christian and a student in seminary (yeah, I know, not a good idea and going to seminary is not something I ever recommend today for someone like me who had only been a Christian for half a decade) studying in the dorm room of the woman who I later married. She would fix me dinner and we'd then spend hours studying together at night. I had never thought of the issue of two adults being alone together in a dorm room being any kind of concern until one of her roommates was clearly uncomfortable that she was leaving us alone together but had to leave, probably for her job or some other commitment. It honestly had never crossed my mind that we would do anything inappropriate in the dorm room. If I had tried, I would have gotten slapped or worse.

There are fences we encourage young men and young women to put up around relationships. We put those fences up for good reason. We need to guard our hearts and minds against temptation. I tell young people that example from my own background and say, "Look, this was a bad idea and don't put yourself in this position. It worked for us, but it's a bad idea and at minimum creates an opportunity for false accusations."

Nonchristians, and many professing Christians from less-strict backgrounds, may have no idea what we are even talking about when we talk about guarding ourselves from temptations or "practicing the Billy Graham rule."

Sharing an apartment is a pretty obvious no-no. But we can think of other cases young people face, of which the most common include traveling on vacations and deciding whether to pay for one hotel room or two. We need to be prepared to say to a young couple, "Even if you aren't doing anything you shouldn't be doing, you obviously love each other and you're playing with fire, and you are opening yourself up to accusations that you are doing things you aren't doing."

It may seem obvious to a conservative Christian raised in a conservative Christian home that two people in love shouldn't share a hotel room, but I know that not every Christian family sees a problem with that. But what about being in a car alone for a twelve-hour drive to visit her parents on holiday break from college? I can think of couples from solid families who I've had to suggest that they reconsider their travel arrangements, and have had to tell them that as a young adult I did what I'm strongly suggesting they not do, namely, be alone in a car for long trips.

These may seem like making excuses for fornication. I'm not doing anything of that sort at all. What I am doing is giving real live examples of what happens when we tell a couple who are cohabiting that they shouldn't be doing it, and they start asking very real questions about how conservative Christians live our lives and have our own dating relationships.

I think a lot depends on the two young people. A 16-year-old in high school is not a 25-year-old in graduate school. The specifics of "guard your heart" depend on the specifics of the two hearts involved. But what we have to confront today is the reality of false accusations, and as I tell young men, "What if the relationship goes bad, and she says you did something you didn't do?" I think avoiding appearance of evil today carries far more weight than it may have done a few decades ago.

 

[TheBoringBaptist]

Malcolm and Dan are both right.

We do need to distinguish between evil and appearance of evil, particularly with people from non-Christian backgrounds who may never have thought through these issues.

We can, and should, take a hard stance against premarital sex. It's wrong. Period. And yes, there's about a 99 percent chance that a cohabiting couple is doing more than sharing an apartment.

But I remember, as a relatively new Christian and a student in seminary (yeah, I know, not a good idea and going to seminary is not something I ever recommend today for someone like me who had only been a Christian for half a decade) studying in the dorm room of the woman who I later married. She would fix me dinner and we'd then spend hours studying together at night. I had never thought of the issue of two adults being alone together in a dorm room being any kind of concern until one of her roommates was clearly uncomfortable that she was leaving us alone together but had to leave, probably for her job or some other commitment. It honestly had never crossed my mind that we would do anything inappropriate in the dorm room. If I had tried, I would have gotten slapped or worse.

There are fences we encourage young men and young women to put up around relationships. We put those fences up for good reason. We need to guard our hearts and minds against temptation. I tell young people that example from my own background and say, "Look, this was a bad idea and don't put yourself in this position. It worked for us, but it's a bad idea and at minimum creates an opportunity for false accusations."

Nonchristians, and many professing Christians from less-strict backgrounds, may have no idea what we are even talking about when we talk about guarding ourselves from temptations or "practicing the Billy Graham rule."

Sharing an apartment is a pretty obvious no-no. But we can think of other cases young people face, of which the most common include traveling on vacations and deciding whether to pay for one hotel room or two. We need to be prepared to say to a young couple, "Even if you aren't doing anything you shouldn't be doing, you obviously love each other and you're playing with fire, and you are opening yourself up to accusations that you are doing things you aren't doing."

It may seem obvious to a conservative Christian raised in a conservative Christian home that two people in love shouldn't share a hotel room, but I know that not every Christian family sees a problem with that. But what about being in a car alone for a twelve-hour drive to visit her parents on holiday break from college? I can think of couples from solid families who I've had to suggest that they reconsider their travel arrangements, and have had to tell them that as a young adult I did what I'm strongly suggesting they not do, namely, be alone in a car for long trips.

These may seem like making excuses for fornication. I'm not doing anything of that sort at all. What I am doing is giving real live examples of what happens when we tell a couple who are cohabiting that they shouldn't be doing it, and they start asking very real questions about how conservative Christians live our lives and have our own dating relationships.

I think a lot depends on the two young people. A 16-year-old in high school is not a 25-year-old in graduate school. The specifics of "guard your heart" depend on the specifics of the two hearts involved. But what we have to confront today is the reality of false accusations, and as I tell young men, "What if the relationship goes bad, and she says you did something you didn't do?" I think avoiding appearance of evil today carries far more weight than it may have done a few decades ago.

Thank you elder for the wise counsel.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

Hello PB members! I have a question pertaining to marriage. If there was a man and woman who were dating and then decided to cohabit, should the pastor marry them? If not, what would be the next required steps in order for the couple to get married? If you're a pastor, how would you handle the situation? (Sorry for my bad English)

(If General Discussions is not the right forum for this question, please move it into the appropriate forum space. Thank you in advance)

If they are professing Christians I would not marry them. This does not mean I would tell them they shouldn't get married. I would likely encourage them to get married in a civil ceremony as Ben described. However, the reason for a pastor and church to be involved in a wedding ceremony is, in my view, for the sake of the couple intentionally making their vows before God in the context of the church community and with a focus on glorifying Christ. They can't honorably do those things if they are going into the marriage in open rebellion. I'd be happy for them to go get married at the courthouse though.

 

[AngusD123]

I disagree just a bit with your "I disagree" statement.
Isn't marriage by default primarily under the civil magistrate's jurisdiction as a minister of God?

If the "civil magistrate (CM) is of secondary importance," it's a pretty close second.

​

When I said this I was thinking of marriage between Christians specifically. When I got married, the key issues was the vows. Even if the marriage was not registered by the state, I would still have considered myself married in the sight of God (and indeed for a brief period after the exchange of vows, before the marriage schedule was signed, this was the case). I fully agree that the civil magistrate's involvement is important for society.

 

[Ed Walsh]

What Biblical evidence would you point towards to demonstrate this?

That's an excellent question. I pondered my view (post #13 off and on all day.

When I consider what I see around the world, governments, kings, etc., seem to take charge of marriage and make all the laws and rules.
Example: Are Gospel ministers granted the authority to annul an unlawful marriage? No.

Hypothetically, two couples you married some years ago have decided to call it quits. One couple are members in good standing in a sound Reformed church. Let's make these two members of your church who you know very well. The other couple, under your tutelage, made some profession of faith and had toyed with Christianity for about a year before casting it all aside in favor of ever-deeper debauchery. Both couples are steadfast, having decided that divorce is their only remedy.

Can you, as a minister, grant the two divorces? No, you may not. Why? Because only the civil magistrate is granted this authority. Now, it might be that the civil ruler has the morals of an alleycat, but his office grants him–more–requires him to use the power of the sward. (coercion)

Personally, as of now, my immature opinion would be that I think it unwise for the man and woman to cohabit in any case knowing the temptations that abound and of what Scripture states in 1 Thessalonians 5:22, "Abstain from every form of evil."

What Biblical evidence would you point towards to demonstrate this?

@Ben Zartman 's posts #4 & 8 seems to take for granted

 

[Ed Walsh]

When I said this I was thinking of marriage between Christians specifically. When I got married, the key issues was the vows.

Just the briefest of responses from me:

Sorry if I expanded the discussion to include a non-Christian married couple.

---

You said,
When I said this, I was explicitly thinking of marriage between Christians. When I got married, the key issue was the vows. Even if the state did not register the marriage, I would still have considered myself married in God's sight.

Let's take your statement, "I would still have considered myself married in God's sight," And apply it to buying a new car. Is buying a car of interest to the state

How about an Audi Quatro?
Would you say again, "Even if the state did not register my new Audi, I would still have considered myself a lawful driver in God's sight?"

How about the Lord's Supper?
The Supper has so degenerated in America that the man in the pew often trumps the authority of God's elders.
I see the man in the pew making sovereign choices regarding his fitness for the Supper. Oh, that the communion tokens would come back into vogue.

---

 

[Northern Crofter]

When I consider what I see around the world, governments, kings, etc., seem to take charge of marriage and make all the laws and rules.
Example: Are Gospel ministers granted the authority to annul an unlawful marriage? No.

The parts I highlighted should give pause - where does Scripture give civil government primary authority over marriage which they can then sublet to ministers? This seems a bit backward.

Scripture seems to give primary authority over marriage to families. I have always been fascinated by Numbers 30 which I believe is moral law (that is, not ceremonial or civil). If so, it, and similar passages in the Law, would seem a father can annul a marriage if it occurred without his permission and/or knowledge.

Nowhere in Scripture or the WCF (no mention in ch.24, for example) are vows an essential part of marriage - vows are voluntary (see WCF 22.6), so they can (and probably should) be a part of a marriage arrangement, but they are not required. Note, too, that the WCF appears to give equal power to the Church or civil magistrate is dissolving a marriage: "nothing but adultery, or such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage." (24.6, emphasis added)

My view would be that Church government does have the authority to "annul" a marriage that occurred within its bounds, and then it is the duty of the civil magistrate to recognize such an annulment (outside of the Church or in a different religion is a different matter).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Numbers 30 which I believe is moral law

This is not confessional, wrt the law and its divisions. The moral law is fully and summarily comprehended in the Decalogue. All the remainder of the law is either civil or ceremonial; it does not bind any further than that moral law underpinning it continues, which rendered it originally "equitable" or fair/just; from which principle men who legislate should try emulation.

The "shape" of legislation is exactly that which is subject to various forces, reworking it for the sake of needful adjustments in circumstances. The very error which the Confession aims to prevent, is the taking of some piece or the whole of OT legislation and declaring it wholesale binding outside of the covenant-frame in which it was ordained. Defining Num.30 as "moral" per se is that kind of mistake.

 

[Northern Crofter]

This is not confessional, wrt the law and its divisions.

Do you mean unconfessional or extraconfessional? The WCF recognizes the three-fold division of the law in Ch.19: "Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws....(.3) To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws....(.4).

The moral law is fully and summarily comprehended in the Decalogue. All the remainder of the law is either civil or ceremonial.

So in your view everything in the Hebrew Scriptures outside Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 is civil or ceremonial?

The moral law is fully and summarily comprehended in the Decalogue.

I find this statement (emphasis added) is extraconfessional - the Westminster Standards simply states that "The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments" (WLC 98). IT does not say "fully." I agree that the 10 Commandments fully summarize the moral law, but doesn't a summary suggest there are more details? For example, WCF 19.1-2 states that the moral law predates the 10 Commandments: "God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works....This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon mount Sinai in ten commandments." And then it states that "The moral law doth forever bind all... also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works... yet is it of great use to them... as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty....The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof (WCF 19.5-6, emphasis added).

Scripture is clear that the Fifth Commandment is "the first commandment with promise" (Ephesians 6.2, emphasis added) - so what are the other commandments that contain promises? Consider the proof text used for the underlined portion of 19.6 above - it does not refer to Exodus or Deuteronomy but to Leviticus 26. Isn't everything in the Hebrew Scriptures a reference, explanation, or example of either the moral, ceremonial, or judicial law? The moral law portions are not restricted simply to the 10 Commandments - you can find all aspects of the moral law just in the first 4 chapters of Genesis. Yes, the 10 Commandments fully summarize the moral law, but Paul is clear in Romans 1 that the moral law exists and is knowable apart from knowledge of the exact wording of the 10 Commandments contained in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. Even the existence of these 2 distinct versions of the 10 Commandments seems to point to the fact that these 10 "words" are summaries, with neither being a "full" account of the moral law, but rather, as the Confession states, a summary, with examples and further instruction given throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, which is why the WLC in expounding the duties required in the commandments lists text after text after text referring to places in the Hebrew Scriptures where the commandment is further fleshed out. The moral law is "the declaration of the will of God to mankind" (WLC 93) and that declaration is not limited to the Ten Words however a complete summary they may be.

I admit that determining whether a passage in the Hebrew Scriptures is referring to the moral, judicial, or ceremonial law is extraconfessional. I also admit that Numbers 30 could be considered judicial since the passage begins "Then Moses spake unto the children of Israel according to all that the Lord had commanded him. Moses also spake unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded" (vv.1-2), and thus is perhaps more likely required under the "general equity" clause. But it seems as though it could also be considered an application of the Fifth Commandment, or even the created family order, the moral law predating its summary in the Decalogue.

 

[AngusD123]

Let's take your statement, "I would still have considered myself married in God's sight," And apply it to buying a new car. Is buying a car of interest to the state

How about an Audi Quatro?
Would you say again, "Even if the state did not register my new Audi, I would still have considered myself a lawful driver in God's sight?"

How about the Lord's Supper?
The Supper has so degenerated in America that the man in the pew often trumps the authority of God's elders.
I see the man in the pew making sovereign choices regarding his fitness for the Supper. Oh, that the communion tokens would come back into vogue.

---

Re your car analogy - if I have an untaxed car (UK equivalent) I can drive it on private property but not on public roads. This fits with my hypothetical marriage situation - I would be able to enjoy the domestic benefits of marriage, but not the legal privileges of marriage (tax and pension benefits for instance).

Re your point about the Lord's supper I share your concerns - and do belong to a church which still uses communion tokens. I'm not advocating people do get married without registering the marriage - it would be problematic in several ways - it was a hypothetical point mainly.