All right, I'm going to start off today with a question to which we will not know the answer until we have been ushered into the eternal kingdom. When were Adam and Eve married? As soon as God woke Adam up from his sleep? Was it when Adam named Eve, calling her the mother of all the living? Did the LORD God oversee a ceremony that declared them to be one flesh?
I know, this is a bit of an unfair question. We don't know the exact moment, just like we would be hard pressed to say for sure when that exact moment is that a man and a woman go from being two different people to one flesh. Is it when they commit to marry one another? Is it when they are declared husband and wife? Is it when they make their vows? (I have known people that stand by each of these as the time when the two become one.)
I think, in general, we see two different issues at work here. One is the commitment of a husband to a wife, and a wife to a husband. God makes it clear that this commitment is the utmost, vital element to the marriage that He creates. Just as God is commited to His people, His people, when joined in marriage, are to be commited to one another.
So that's the first issue. The second issue is having a "moment" in which we recognize that something has changed for the husband and the wife. We typically call this the ceremony. We have an occasion which celebrates what God is doing in the lives of the man and the woman as they are joined together in a one flesh union. The ceremony gives us a clear picture that there was a "before", when they were two, and at the conclusion of the ceremony, the "after", they are now one. So we recognize that the ceremony exists for the sake of good order, even as we recognize that God does something in the midst of that ceremony.
In case you think I am just rambling on this, I do actually have somewhere I am going with this. One of the realities we have faced in the nation and time we live in is that a marriage has been recognized as the joining of a man and a woman at the conclusion of the ceremony, both by the Church and by the state. In fact, most clergy are vested with authority by the state to marry people, which means that, in some respects, there are two ceremonies taking place; one faith oriented, and the other state oriented. At the conclusion of the ceremony, both the Church and the state would recognize the man and woman as being married.
I'll get to a point here to keep this from being too long a post. If the state were to declare that marriage can consist of something other than what a faith deems marriage, could the two (state and religious) ceremonies then be separate? If a clergyman were to be required, by the state, to civily marry any two people who desired marriage, could the clergy "give up" the right to conduct ceremonies recognized by the state, and focus exclusively on the religious ceremony? If the couple then decided that they wanted their marriage to be recognized by the state, they could then arrange for a civil authority to do what their clergy would already have done religiously.
As we look at the day and age that we live in, is this an option for clergy who hold to particular beliefs about marriage? It's a question that I believe we will have to be addressing fairly soon in our nation.
I know, this is a bit of an unfair question. We don't know the exact moment, just like we would be hard pressed to say for sure when that exact moment is that a man and a woman go from being two different people to one flesh. Is it when they commit to marry one another? Is it when they are declared husband and wife? Is it when they make their vows? (I have known people that stand by each of these as the time when the two become one.)
I think, in general, we see two different issues at work here. One is the commitment of a husband to a wife, and a wife to a husband. God makes it clear that this commitment is the utmost, vital element to the marriage that He creates. Just as God is commited to His people, His people, when joined in marriage, are to be commited to one another.
So that's the first issue. The second issue is having a "moment" in which we recognize that something has changed for the husband and the wife. We typically call this the ceremony. We have an occasion which celebrates what God is doing in the lives of the man and the woman as they are joined together in a one flesh union. The ceremony gives us a clear picture that there was a "before", when they were two, and at the conclusion of the ceremony, the "after", they are now one. So we recognize that the ceremony exists for the sake of good order, even as we recognize that God does something in the midst of that ceremony.
In case you think I am just rambling on this, I do actually have somewhere I am going with this. One of the realities we have faced in the nation and time we live in is that a marriage has been recognized as the joining of a man and a woman at the conclusion of the ceremony, both by the Church and by the state. In fact, most clergy are vested with authority by the state to marry people, which means that, in some respects, there are two ceremonies taking place; one faith oriented, and the other state oriented. At the conclusion of the ceremony, both the Church and the state would recognize the man and woman as being married.
I'll get to a point here to keep this from being too long a post. If the state were to declare that marriage can consist of something other than what a faith deems marriage, could the two (state and religious) ceremonies then be separate? If a clergyman were to be required, by the state, to civily marry any two people who desired marriage, could the clergy "give up" the right to conduct ceremonies recognized by the state, and focus exclusively on the religious ceremony? If the couple then decided that they wanted their marriage to be recognized by the state, they could then arrange for a civil authority to do what their clergy would already have done religiously.
As we look at the day and age that we live in, is this an option for clergy who hold to particular beliefs about marriage? It's a question that I believe we will have to be addressing fairly soon in our nation.
Indeed, marriage is both civil and legal as well as ceremonial and religious. However, gay activists would not be satisfied with a civil ceremony, since they are all about retribution against biblical churches opposed to homosexual "marriage." What better way to punish the pastors of such churches than demanding ceremonial weddings in church venues? The discrimination lawsuits will come quickly, because the church is the target, however, while progressive and liberal congregations are already apostate and on board with gay marriage, the opposing churches must be intimidated and brought to their knees. Thus, we know the agenda and motivation behind the relationship between gays and the government. It means more future conflicts, but true believers will not relent nor be overwhelmed by this evil.
ReplyDeleteThe further question to be addressed is what happens when, due to religious objection to a non-Biblical civil definition of marriage, a couple wants to be married in the church, but has not desire to have that marriage recognized by the state - willingly foregoing the tax breaks and other benefits of a civil marriage. Some states say that any religious marriage MUST be authorized by the state, usually stated that no clergy shall preform a wedding ceremony without a valid marriage license for the couple. Will the state then have reason to come after the clergy for performing a religious ceremony without an accompanying civil acknowledgement. If we as clergy object to signing licenses, should our members also object to obtaining a license for an institution that they no longer recognize? Is this a matter of rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's or has the civil definition so fundamentally changed that we are no longer able to acknowledge it at all?
ReplyDelete