I am currently pastoring a number of parents that are living in de facto relationships.  If one parent in the de facto relationship converts to Christianity and the other is not interested, how do I council them?

The scripture that comes to mind is 1 Corinthians 7:39 where believers are instructed to only marry other believers.  So if there were no children involved and a woman was living with her boyfriend I would suggest an end to the relationship.  But when children are involved perhaps they are already living in a marriage type relationship and I should encourage them to marry.

Are there scriptures that make this situation any clearer?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Craig, I think scripture also says that if they are living with an unbeliever who is willing to stay with them to not leave.

What is the real difference if their is children involved or not?

Craig, I think scripture also says that if they are living with an unbeliever who is willing to stay with them to not leave.

Actually, Craig B, I have to disagree with you on this. In 1 Cor 7:12-13 Paul is addressing believers who have unbelieving husbands or wives. He is writing to married people, not to those who are living together while unmarried.
I am sure others in pastoral ministry have got advice on this one. But it seems to me that if someone has decided to have Jesus as their Lord, then they ought to be saying to their partner that they want to get married. If their partner refuses, then it seems to me that they ought to leave the relationship unless and until there is a change of mind. “Marriage” is constituted by both a commitment to the other person for life, and formal recognition of that by the community, and where both those things are not present the parties are not married.
It does seem to me that Craig T is right to say it becomes more complex when children are involved- as one would normally not want kids to be separated from either parent. Perhaps one solution (not ideal, of course, but sin creates second-best situations) would be for the believing partner not to move out of home but to stop sleeping with the unbelieving partner unless and until the marriage question is sorted out.
Of course this makes life tough for the new believer. But the gospel isn’t designed to make life easy here and now! And all of us are called on to pick up our crosses and follow the Lord Jesus (Mk 8:34). I am sure that long term the kids in such a situation will be blessed by seeing the difference the gospel makes for their believing parent.
Neil F

I think it depends on the actual relationship in question - there are some de facto relationships that are a marriage in everything bar the ceremony and the bit of paper, whilst there are others where one or both people want to keep “one foot outside the door”, as it were.

If is it the former, I think they should stay together, if its the latter, then either they should get married or the Christian should think seriously about leaving, except perhaps if there are kids involved, (but then again, if there are kids involved the relationship is much more likely to be the former rather than the latter).

There is no “one size fits all” here, I think....

You know, I reckon there’s a fair bit of trouble with the words ‘de facto’. They only describe something (like ‘big’ or ‘green’). People are in a ‘de facto something.’ That something is not relationship, it is marriage. Often, however, I see the words de facto used to mean ‘not marriage.’

What does that mean pastorally? I think we’ve got to ask the couple concerned what their self-understanding is: ‘de facto marriage’ or ‘de facto not-marriage’. If it’s the former, then get rid of the confusion by de jure marriage. If it’s the latter, then get rid of the confusion by ending it.

Yes, that’s simplified - but I’m about to lose concentration ...

I think I need to make myself clearer. As I see it, and I think this is the Bible’s view, a couple are married when they have made a public commitment to be husband and wife exclusively for life, and they have done so in accordance with the law of the community they live in. In Australia today (and for the last couple of centuries) that means a ceremony which complies with Australian law. To write this off as a “piece of paper” is wrong. It is not simply a piece of paper, the ceremony is the way of expressing that life commitment which makes a marriage. If that has not happened, then the couple concerned, who may be living and sleeping together, are not married. Whatever their private intentions, whatever their promises to each other wthin the relationship, a marriage has not taken place until they have entered into that commitment in the sight of the community, which engages all the rules that community has set up which apply to married people.
Hence I would say that that if the couple are not married they should marry. If they are “all but” then this will not be a problem. If it is one may doubt how serious they are.
Neil F

Neil Foster - 27 September 2008 10:59 PM

As I see it, and I think this is the Bible’s view, a couple are married when they have made a public commitment to be husband and wife exclusively for life, and they have done so in accordance with the law of the community they live in.

What are your biblical references for this?

Good call, if I say something like this I should be prepared to back it up. It seems to me that you can see this from the overall pattern of marriage in the Bible. In Gen 1:24 we see that a man leaves his previous membership of the family unit shared with his father and mother, and “holds fast” to his wife and they become “one flesh”. The change is from one family to another, and this needs to be recognised in the community because a number of things flow from the status of marriage. “One flesh” I seem to recall is about being “closest kin” now to the wife.
Through the Bible there is never a suggestion that a couple are married by some private decision they make on their own. Marriage is seen to be celebrated in the face of the community (eg Gen 24:67, 29:23)- indeed, Abraham nearly gets into trouble because Pharoah in Gen 12:18 does not know Sarai is his wife.
The fact is that all the evidence I can see in the Bible is that this is what the word “marriage” means. After all, it would undermine the prohibition on adultery if we were never sure who was who’s spouse. The forbidden degrees of marriage become impossible to sort out if we as a community don’t know who is married to who.
In light of this normally accepted meaning of the word, I think (if I can resort to a lawyer’s strategy!) that the onus lies on those who say that marriage between a man and a woman can take place other than in the face of the community and in public, to provide Biblical evidence for it. (1 Cor 6:15-16 does not mean that one act of intercourse makes a couple married, as I have occasionally heard said.)
I accept that it would be clearer if I could give you one clear verse, but it seems to me that what I have put is just what the Bible assumes all the way through. Sexual relationship outside a marriage celebrated in the face of the community is what the Bible calls adultery or fornication.

I’ll let you guys with the theo-brains sort out the Biblical stuff. On the practical level I think it wise to ask the couples what they think about their relationships;
1) With God
2) With one another
3) With their church.

The degrees to which they are committed to God will impact on what they do next. ie; Will they feel bound to marry or separate? Will they need to study and pray more before they are sure what to do? Will they, for example (I’ve seen this done) decide to co-habit but no longer sleep together until they have things sorted out? Do they accept the rules about sexual activity outside mariage? If one is divorcing, do they consider themselves already married but yet to have the formalities?
The degrees to how committed they are to one another will impact on whether or not they feel obliged to marry. Was living together a courtship and now they need guidance as to how to pursue that process without co-habiting or sex?
The degree to which their church supports and understands them is important, and this needs to ba balanced against confidentiality.

Onya Craig, this is a minefield and you’re doing a big job!

Neil

I am not suggesting that marriage can be purely private matter, and I agree, for the reasons you give, that the community needs to know about it.  However, the practical reality is that the community will know about the existence of a de facto relationship that is a marriage “without the ceremony and without the paper”.  So I don’t think that the verses you have pointed to get you there.

In terms of what a marriage actually is, I agree that Gen 2.24 (not 1.24) is the key text, but I take as primarily referring to a spiritual, mental, emotional and physical oneness between two people, rather than to matters of social structure or kinship, although of course it does have consequences there also (eg the “leaving father and mother” bit) that should be recognised by the community.

I also agree that, ideally, couples who have become “one” with each other, or are planning to do so, should be willing to make a public commitment to each other, as a means of showing that they are completely serious about what they have done / are doing, and also of making them think through the seriousness of their relationship and whether they truly want to be committed to it. However, I think that this is ultimately a matter of wisdom rather than of biblical command.

In this context, I think the key question becomes, as Owen pointed out, the level of commitment that the two people involved have to God, and to each other.  This will vary from person to person, and from couple to couple, along the lines of Owen’s (and others’) earlier posts.

It is also important to keep in mind that, in Craig’s original question, only one of them has converted to Christianity, and that the other is not interested, which means not only that there is an additional question of Christian witness involved here, but also that the unconverted person (who, by definition, is still not seeking to honour God) may well see no reason to change the status quo. 

If the Christian person is already “one” with their spouse, then requiring them to either insist on marriage, or to leave, seems to me to put them in an impossible position.

David

Dear David;
I don’t claim to have all the answers on this yet but let me put this to you as a possible view of what “marriage” is- that it is the status recognised in a particular society which leads to the creation of a new family and to an in-theory life long relationship between a man and a woman. (The “in-theory” bit is because most societies recognise some possibility of divorce.)
A man and a woman are not married under the law of Australia unless they have been through a legally recognised marriage ceremony. I incline to the view that a man and a woman living under the Australian legal system are not married within the meaning of that term in the Bible until they are married for the purposes of Australian law. Otherwise the Biblical commands about not committing adultery, etc, become impossible to sort out because we cannot know who is married to whom until we assess intangibles like the depth of their commitment to God and to each other. To me this is impossibly subjective and not consistent with the fairly straightforward approach of the Bibllical material, which all along assumes that it is quite obvious whether someone is married or not.
Hence it seems to me that a couple who have not gone through a legally recognised marriage ceremony know quite well whether they are “married” or not. If one becomes a believer then they will need to work out the consequences of the fact that they are living in a sexually active relationship with another person while not married. My first post suggests my views as to what the best options area. I don’t say it will be easy, and I can see that it would be incredibly hard in some situations to obey the Lord here. But that is what we are called to.
I need to do some more thinking and reading to make a more persuasive case for my view that “marriage” in the Bible is neither more nor less than “marriage” under the currently applicable legal regime. I will let you know here if I come up with anything.
Neil F

Just as I thought, the Bible does not get clearer than what I mentioned in my original post.  So it seems to need the employ of godly wisdom.

My thinking, shaped by what has been said here and inmy own thinking is that; if a couple is living together and having children with each other they are essentially commited to the relationship long term and I should encourage them to consider getting married.  However if the unbeliever is unwilling to marry but is willing to stay in the relationship, I suggest the sexual part of the relationship should be put on hold.  Much harder said than done of course.

If the non christian partner is unwilling to stay with the new Christian I suggest they are free to leave and the Christian is not bound in that situation.  The same as if they were married.

No matter which way we look at it, this is a very pastorally sensitive situation which could do great harm to children and families if handled badly.  I think I need to pray the Solomon prayer and ask for godly wisdom that that reflects the nature of scripture where scripture is unclear.

Thax <><

Some random thoughts:
1. I would expect that in Paul’s time, there would have been Christian slaves living together faithfully who would have had no opportunity to celebrate that legally, or even publicly.
2. Couples living together without being married will have a variety of reasons for doing so. Whether legally married or not, all Christians need to consider how their relationships conform to the Gospel.
Eric.

Dear Eric:
Some random answers.

1. I would expect that in Paul’s time, there would have been Christian slaves living together faithfully who would have had no opportunity to celebrate that legally, or even publicly.

1. Maybe; I don’t know enough about how marriages between slaves worked. But I’m not sure that they are relevant to our situation in Australia today, and since Paul doesn’t refer to them explicitly I don’t think we are meant to learn anything from them for our godliness.

2. Couples living together without being married will have a variety of reasons for doing so.

2. There may be a variety of reasons but, I’m sorry, as I read the Bible all the reasons would be sinful. God’s purpose is a for sexual relationships to only exist between a man and a woman who are married. (If by “living together” you exclude sex we are talking at cross purposes.) I assume even those here who think that marriage can take place outside the formal structures of our society, would agree that a man and a woman should be married before sleeping together.
Regards
Neil F

Nell, I have read some essays and one book on the history of marriage and the church’s involvement and attitudes. I think some familiarity with this history would mitigate against hard and fast judgements on these matters.
Eric.

Dear Eric;
I know this sounds like a simplistic response but it is the only one I can make. I have also over the years read a number of views taken by the church at different times. But to me the one book that matters on this point is the Bible. The relationship of a man and woman in marriage is meant to be lifelong and exclusive, a mirror of the eternal and faithful commitment of Christ to his church.  Divorce is allowed in our sinful world in rare cases, but marriage between one man and one woman is the sphere in which sexual relations are to occur.
Regards
Neil F