Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Excellent question.
    
    Marriage is a sociological phenomenon, is it not?  Religion and
    local law are certainly influencing factors as to the "actuality"
    or "credibility" of the marriage.
    
    On the Timothy passage, I believe it is a plea to have only one
    spouse at a time, thus uncomplicating bishops and deacons lives
    (and finances) to allow more of both to the life of the church.
    
    Richard

In the sermon I heard yesterday at an Episcopal church, a guest speaker
(I believe that he was said to be a rector in Denver) spoke about marriages
long ago (in the time of the parable of the "foolish virgins").  He said
that the marriage ceremony was the act of "kidnapping" a bride.  He said
that the groom and his friends would go out to the bride's home and 
"kidnap" the bride from *her* family, and would bring her back to the house
where *his* family and other friends awaited them.  When they got back to
the house, they were considered married, and the wedding feast would take
place.

I believe I caught all of this accurately, but since I was also tending
a two-year-old, I won't swear to it.  The kidnapping is something I am
familiar with, however.  In same cases it was *really* kidnapping (and
rape) as the woman was not willing.

          Carol

Our language is not conducive to gay marriages.  I understand it is not
uncommon for someone to ask either out of naivety or out of cruelty, "Which
one is the bride (or groom)?"

Lingual restrictions, fortunately, do not make reality, merely perceptions.

Moreover, a wedding ceremony is *not* a marriage.  A wedding in American
society is but a single day.  A marriage, ideally, is for a lifetime.

Peace,
Richard

Our pastor did his doctoral thesis on this topic.  After much study, he
believes that it was a very practical restriction of only having one
wife at a time (i.e. against polygamy).  The ramifications would also
include not chasing other women when you are already married (both then
and today).

I believe that you are married in a Christian marriage when you do the
proper steps both in the eyes of God and the eyes of government (whom
God has set in authority).

I believe that you are married in a marriage when you do the proper steps
in the eyes of government.

Collis

    Collis,
    	that was a cop-out and you know it. ;-) Part of your comment
    scrolled off the screen so I'll do the best I can from memory (not
    Memorex). I believe that you are married in a Christian marriage when
    you do the proper steps before God ...etc  This is all very nice but it
    doesn't say a thing. The "etc" refers to the proper steps for the
    government, and that we can figure out by going down to any city hall
    and following the signs to the proper clerk. There is no such source
    for learning what you mean by the proper steps before God. If I get
    married in this state then I am considered married in California and
    Florida and Isreal; and if I get married by a UU minister then that
    marriage is considered valid by Jews, Catholics, Muslims and Baptists
    alike. I can easily understand why various governments would accept
    each other's ceremonies/prerequisits as valid, but why would various
    churches with widely variant understandings of "God" accept each
    other's ceremonies as valid ?  Some few might insist that a Catholic
    couple must be married by a Catholic priest but I don't recall hearing
    that a Catholic priest would discount a non-Catholic wedding between
    non-Catholics. So, what do you feel is required for a "Christian"
    marriage ?  And why ?  Do you feel that more is required than having
    the civil ceremony performed by a christian ?  Or must the person
    performing it be a clergyman ?  If an ordained minister, must that
    person have a congregation or is graduation from a seminary-type
    program sufficient ?
    	Now the tough question; did you intend to limit polygamy to
    polygyny (...a very practical restriction of having one wife at a time)
    or did you also intend to include polyandry ?  Or did it never occur to
    you that your wife might want a little spice and variety in her life
    too ? ;-)  I understand that a certain number of those who view
    polygyny to be shameful and a sin are so apalled by polyandry that they
    equate it with an abomination and perhaps witchcraft/satan worship. The
    man who strays is often seen as being "weak" while the woman who strays
    is often subjected to the harshest of "criticisms". But I'm sure you
    would never apply such a double-standard. Or would you ? };-> (Sorry,
    Collis, just tweaking you a little - no won't power)

    I have heard strongly fundamentalist Christians say that there
    is no marriage unless both spouses accept Jesus. That would mean
    that a large number of people are not really married.
    
    Bonnie

Re:  110.5

  >...that was a cop-out and you know it. ;-) 

True.

  >This is all very nice but it doesn't say a thing. 

Just keeping in practice.  :-)

  >I can easily understand why various governments would accept each other's 
  >ceremonies/prerequisits as valid, but why would various churches with 
  >widely variant understandings of "God" accept each other's ceremonies as 
  >valid?  

Marriage is an institutition that God has set up regardless of whether
or not the people are believers.  Likewise, God has ordained governments -
even those that explicitly reject him.  Therefore, marriages are accepted
by almost all Christians as legitimate, even when one or both of the
partners is not a Christian.

  >So, what do you feel is required for a "Christian" marriage?  And why?

I think a Christian wedding should include (Biblically)

  1) both partners be Christians

  2) the laws of the government are followed (Romans 13)

  3) one man and one woman being united to each other for a lifetime
     commitment

  4) ceremony performed by a minister of the gospel (unless one is not
     available - not a problem in the U.S. typically)

I think a Christian marriage is one where both partners acknowledge
God as their Lord and the head of the marriage and they submit to
God's leading.

In terms of poly... terms (which I'm not familiar with), I understand
the Bible as teaching that marriage is a lifetime commitment where divorce
is rarely an option.  If divorce occurs for the cause of (persistent,
unrepentent) adultery, then the spouse is free to marry again without
restriction (since the adultery is, in essence, causing a "death" to
the marriage).  This is essentially John MacArthur's (sp.?) view which
I agree with.

However, having said that, I would want to view each individual situation
in a compassionate, loving light and not say that there is one hard and
fast rule for any situation.  Having said *that*, I also think that
exceptions to the above would be extremely few, in my judgment.

Collis

Re:  .6

Bonnie,

Do you know of any denominations that apply this standard?  I can believe
that there are some, I just have never run across any.

Collis

    No I don't Collis, 
    
    I just recall seeing people make such statements in the confernce
    on golf:: I do not know what denomination they belonged to. I think
    I most recently saw it in the long note about interraccial marriages.
    
    Bonnie

    I have heard of orthodox Jewish groups that do not accept civil
    marriages as valid. Also some Catholic who feel the same way.
    Especially for their own children.

    		Alfred

    In Marriage Encounter they refer to a relationship which they call
    "married singles."
    
    Married Singles are a legally married couple, but a couple which has
    drifted so far apart emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, and
    sometimes even physically, they may as well be single.
    
    Richard

    I recognize that one.  I think that was where my ex and I were for at
    least the last two years of our marriage.  It finally got to the point
    where it was ridiculous *not* to get divorced.
    
    Nanci

    Collis,
    	thanks, I don't agree with all your points but you presented them
    well. And didn't even get riled at my teasing. 
    	The points that I do not accept are the one stating that there need
    be a man and a woman and the one specifying that God is the head of the
    marriage. I can accept that both need to accept the teachings of Christ
    easily enough, though. Could you tell us why you feel the way you do on
    these two points ?  The reasoning behind my opinion is that, in one
    case it is a senseless restriction, and in the other it requires a
    commitment that a young person simply is not ready to make an informed
    decision on. To many young people make rash decisions and the more that
    is dependent on any one hook of faith, the more is lost if that hook
    goes. What if MikeV had a marriage based on such an understanding prior
    to his rejection of the inerrancy of the Bible? The marriage would have
    gone along with his faith in that concept. Now that he has come to
    again accept many of the teachings of the Bible he would still be shed
    of his wife. (Don't mean to pick on you, Mike, you happened to be handy
    and "open") Anyhow, Collis, what say you ?
    
    	Dave

RE back a few.

Nanci,

That condition is sometimes called a death of a marriage. I will
start a new note about that.

calvin

Re:  110.13

  >The points that I do not accept are the one stating that there need
  >be a man and a woman...

This touches on the homosexual topic.  Let me briefly say that:

  1)  God provided a woman for a man in Genesis as a suitable helper,
      specifically declaring at the time that it is appropriate for
      a (i.e. one) woman to leave her parents and cleave to a (i.e. one)
      man.

  2)  I Timothy 3 discusses being the husband of one wife as a qualification
      for elder or deacon.  This means, in my undestanding, no polygamous
      marriages and no chasing other women when in a marriage.

  3)  References to the inappropriateness of homosexual sexual
      relationships can be found in other notes.

  >...and the one specifying that God is the head of the marriage. 

From a general perspective, this is easy to see in that God is the
head of all that we do.  In other words, we are always responsible
to God for what we choose and we should always submit our wills to
God's will.  There is an explicit reference to this in Ephesians 5
as well as other verses, I believe.  (I'm really pressed for time and
would prefer to be a little lax in looking up verses.)

  >To many young people make rash decisions and the more that is dependent 
  >on any one hook of faith, the more is lost if that hook goes. 

It is true that have a deep faith is the ideal.  Many people enter a
marriage with a weak faith (mostly because their parents [primarily] and
the church [secondarily] have failed in keeping God's command to disciple
believers).  This does not make their marriage less of a marriage.  It
only means that they should work on their faith as well as their marriage.

  >What if MikeV had a marriage based on such an understanding prior
  >to his rejection of the inerrancy of the Bible? 

I would strongly recommend that no one place their faith in the inerrancy
of the Bible.  I didn't.  And I did not accept that doctrine for the
first 10+ years of my Christian walk.

  >The marriage would have gone along with his faith in that concept. 

To lapse on your commitment for life to your spouse because your beliefs
about the Bible change is totally inappropriate.  The Bible is also quite
clear that the commitment to marriage is a lifelong commitment even if
you are married to an unbeliever.  (I also believe that this commitment
stays even if the unbeliever leaves.  I understand this verse in I Cor 7
to mean that the believer need not chase down the unbeliever in an attempt
to have the unbeliever come back rather than the understanding that the
believer is free to divorce if the unbeliever leaves.)

Collis

    Collis,
    	this does indeed touch on the homosexual topic. Your first point
    includes male/female marriage - but does not exclude homosexual
    marriage. It is faulty logic to assume that because something was not
    explicitly included it must therefore be excluded. Your second point
    deals with exclusivity and I'll not question it as it isn't germane,
    unless we are getting back to some faulty assumtions. Point three is
    something we disagree on - and it didn't add much to the discussion.
    
    	I guess that if you feel that God is the head of your life then it
    is absolutely correct that God should also be the head of your
    marriage. If that is NOT your framework then I can see having a lot of
    problems accepting that stricture.

Re:  110.16

Dave,

  >Your first point includes male/female marriage - but does not exclude 
  >homosexual marriage. It is faulty logic to assume that because something 
  >was not explicitly included it must therefore be excluded. 

This was precisely why I did not do this and included point 3.

  >I guess that if you feel that God is the head of your life then it
  >is absolutely correct that God should also be the head of your marriage. 

This is essentially what I was trying to say.  

Collis

Note 110.15

>  1)  God provided a woman for a man in Genesis as a suitable helper,
>      specifically declaring at the time that it is appropriate for
>      a (i.e. one) woman to leave her parents and cleave to a (i.e. one)
>      man.

Genesis 1:24

	This is close.  The verse actually says the man leaves his parents,
not the woman.

	Regardless of this, I've always considered it an afterthought, inserted
possibly during pre-Scriptural times while under oral tradition.  The reason?
Adam had no human parents to leave.  Neither did Eve for that matter.  Without
human parents, the analogy (literally) falls apart.

Peace,
Richard

 Re.229.81
 
  "'tis not a piece of paper that is required, 'tis a lifelong commitment
to your spouse which is something no piece of paper can give."


 Collis:
        
          I found this to be quite a facinating statement. It would seem
  to imply that people can be married without being married according to
  the legal definition of the term
          Now, if this is the case Elaine and I were married long before
  we were actually married. 
          If two people of the same gender share a "lifelong commitment"
  to each other, are they not then "married" ?
          Where does God and governments allegedly instituted by God
  come into the picture with this idea of marriage by commitment ?
          This marriage by commitment idea seems very much like the concept
  of Common Law marriage still on the books in some states.
           I would certainly agree that a marriage between two people exits
  as a relationship between them regardless of whether or not some "magic
  words" have been spoken or a piece of paper has been issued by the state.
           This idea has some pretty far reaching effects if you think about
  it. For instance this commitment exists does this mean that sexual 
  relationships do not constitute fornication ? If this commitment exists
  is it adultery if one of the partners has a sexual relationship with a 
  someone else ?
           Geeze Collis, in my mind this really opens quite the theological
  can of worms.


                                                               Mike

    RE: .19 Exactly the can of worms I wanted to see this topic open. :-)
    
    		Alfred

Re:  .19

Mike,

We are people who need to make commitments and at the same time resist
making them.  It is usually only something special which causes us to
actually make a long-lasting commitment.

The love of another is one of these special things.  Not only do we
actually want to hear their lifelong commitment to us, we also want to
make a lifelong commitment to them.

We live in a society where this need and desire is recognized as right
and proper.  We are also aware, in this society, that this commitment is
very serious and needs to be taken seriously.  That is why we (and almost
all societies that I know of) encourage and support wedding ceremonies
which establishes and acknowledges the commitment of a man to a woman and
vice versa.  Such a commitment should be made with much prayer, wisdom,
solemness and joy.

It is similar to converting to Christ.  A new believer is instructed to
make his witness known publicly.  Likewise, a marriage is to be made known
publicly and subscribe to the governing authorities (Romans 13).

We are also to be very aware of our witness to others (Romans 14) and not
cause them to sin.  Without this public lifelong commitment, we run the
risk of being called fornicators and sinning against God as well as others
and our own bodies.

This, therefore, is a proper way to be married.  The question can be asked,
"why be married a 'different' way?"  Of what advantage is it?

The disadvantages are obvious.  There is no (necessary) legal commitment,
there is no (necessary) public commitment, there is the appearance (if the
the commiting) of sin and there is a flaunting of established practice.

What are the advantages that outway this?  To assert independence of others?
But this is exactly what we are NOT to do (submitting to each other and
submitting to government authorities and to the church are all Biblical
principals).  Because it is a private commitment?  Not if the marriage
is a godly one, for that marriage is a triune marriage.

Collis

 Re.21

 Collis:

	 You write of two necessities in your reply that don't 
 	really seem to be that necessary in my mind.
	 First there is the legal necessity of commitment. I would
  	agree that this commitment is in some instances imposed on
	us by the state, but to the individuals involved there is
	no necessity of legal commitment unless they desire to observe
  	whatever legal form of matrimony is the custom in their culture.
        Many couples are perfectly happy without fulfilling what you
        perceive as a necessity and some who desire this legal commitment
        are prevented from establishing it because they are of the same
        gender. 
         Then there is the necessity of public commitment you mention.
        Again I see no necessity to be apparent. Perhaps the desire to
        publicly acknowledge this commitment, but it is not necessary
        and in some instances not desired. Elaine and I were married for
        quite some time before we informed anyone we were wed. It just was 
   	not he concern of anybody else. The only one who truly needed 
        to know of my commitment was Elaine. I married her not the public.
        I also got the impression that public acknowledgment is a requirement
        to prevent sin, specifically fornication. Does this mean married
        couples may be guilty of fornication if they have not publicly
        announced their commitment ? I don't grasp this idea very well
        at all.
	 As for "the flaunting of established practice", well... there are
        few things that are to be more desired. More people should flaunt
        established practice more often. Why I seldom refuse to avail 
        myself of the opportunity to do so. This is especially true of
        government authority which you say we are to submit to. On the
        contrary the government is required to submit to the people. We 
        employ them. The government is our servant nor vice versa. 
         I am still curious about this marriage by commitment idea. Suppose
        two people publicly announce their lifelong commitment to each other.
        This would seem to meet the public necessity of which you speak, but
	obviously not the legal necessity you wrote of.
         You also wrote of a triune godly marriage. What of those who are
        not Christians ? Are their marriages ungodly ? Is that really possible
        if marriage is , as you claim, an institution ordained by God ?
          

                                                                
                                                               Mike       

                                               
       
         
	

Mike,

I was supporting my beliefs from what the Bible says, not from what
conventional wisdom dictates.  If you'd like to suggest that my
reasoning is unbiblical, then we can discuss this further.  If, however,
you simply acknowledge that your reasoning differs from the Bible,
I would be happy to acknowledge that with you.

Re:  non-Christian marriages

Indeed, non-Christians may certainly be married.  Marriage is given
to all (like the sun and the rain), not just to Christians.  But there
is a fundamental difference in the relationship between two Christians
who are married and other marriages.  One includes God as in integral
partner in the marriage and the other does not.

Collis

    Re.21

     Collis:
               I can't find anything in Romans 13 that calls for 
              public acknowledgment of a lifelong commitment 
              in marriage.

                                                    Mike

    P.S. Yes, I do keep a Bible in my cube and do actually look
         references when given.

What Exactly Is Marriage??

	"Marriage is when you get to keep your girl and don't have
	 to give her back to her parents!"
						-Eric, 6

	"When somebody's been dating for a while, the boy might
	 propose to the girl. He says to her, 'I'll take you for 
	 a whole life, or at least until we have kids and get
	 divorced, but you got to do one particular thing for me.'
	 Then she says yes, but she's wondering what the thing is
	 and whether it's naughty or not. She can't wait to find
	 out."
						-Anita, 9

How Does a Person Decide Whom to marry??

	"You flip a nickel, and heads means you stay with him and
	 tails means you try the next one."
						-Kally, 9

	"My mother says to look for a man who is kind....That's
	 what I'll do....I'll find somebody who's kinda tall 
	 and handsome."
						-Carolyn, 8

Concerning the Proper Age to Get Married.

	"Eighty-four! Because at that age, you don't have to
	 work anymore, and you can spend all your time loving
	 each other in your bedroom."
						-Carolyn, 8

	"Once I'm done with kindergarten, I'm going to find 
	 me a wife!"
						-Bert, 5

How Did Your Mom and Dad Meet??

	"They were at a dance party at a friend's house. Then
	 they went for a drive, but their car broke down....
	 It was a good thing, because it gave them a chance to
	 find out about their values."
						-Lottie, 9

	"My father was doing some strange chores for my mother.
	 They won't tell me what kind."
						-Jeremy, 8

What Do Most People Do on a Date??

	"On the first date, they just tell each other lies, and
	 that usually gets them interested enough to go for a
	 second date."
						-Martin, 10

	"Many daters just eat pork chops and french fries and
	 talk about love."
						-Craig, 9

When Is It Okay to Kiss Someone??

	"You should never kiss a girl unless you have enough
	 bucks to buy her a big ring and her own VCR, 'cause
	 she'll want to have videos of the wedding."
						-Allan, 10

	"Never kiss in front of other people. It's a big
	 embarrassing thing if anybody sees you....If nobody
	 sees you, I might be willing to try it with a handsome
	 boy, but just for a few hours."
						-Kally, 9

The Great Debate: Is It Better to Be Single or Married??

	"You should ask the people who read Cosmopolitan!"
						-Kirsten, 10

	"It's better for girls to be single but not for boys.
	 Boys need somebody to clean up after them!"
						-Anita, 9

	"It gives me a headache to think about that stuff. I'm
	 just a kid. I don't need that kind of trouble."
						-Will, 7
    

Re:  91.2488
    
  >If that is true then how come people can get married entirely separate
  >from any religious institution whatsoever?

It is true regardless of how people get married because this is what
God instituted - regardless of who believes it, accepts it, endorses
it or denies it.

  >The legal union of two people under the auspices of the state is the
  >general basis for married status as far as the *legal* entitlements of
  >marriage are concerned.  God doesn't enter into the equation as far as
  >the legality of marriage is concerned.

Unfortunately, God doesn't enter the picture on a number of laws that
humans, in their (lack of) wisdom, choose to make.
    
However, God did not give marriage to us simply because we follow Him
(as He did communion, for example).  Marriage is available for all
(just like the laws of government are for all - God did institute
government as well [Romans 13]) and since it is available for those
who reject God, it is indeed appropriate for civil authorities to
recognize marriage.  Personally, I think the current system in the
U.S. whereby ministers of the gospel (and other religious authorities)
may marry as well as civil authorities is quite a good system.

Collis

    Yes, it is a good system, but I suppose my next question is should
    *civil* marriages only be available to those in relationships
    purportedly sanctioned by the Bible?
    
    Daniel

Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron.

/john

    From the *civil* perspective, john?
    
    Why?  The state's reason's for joining people in a legally binding
    relationship is not the same as a church's.
    
    What compelling argument exists for the state to limit *civil* marriage
    to opposite sex couples?  Children are raised quite successfully in
    same sex households.  Long term same sex relationships have the same
    household concerns as opposite sex households.
    
    What compels the *STATE* from preventing it in the CIVIL arena?
    
    Daniel

  >What compels the *STATE* from preventing it in the CIVIL arena?

Sometimes submission to God, sometimes submission to the morality
that their God-given conscience gives them.

Of course, since people can do whatever they please, it is not at
all certain that states will continue to limit marriages to
heterosexual couples.  However, we are moving beyond the limits
of a discussion in this notesfile, I believe, since we generally
at least keep a pretense of keeping God somewhere in the loop.

Collis