Neil

On the issue of Commonwealth having priority over State legislation with regard to legal marriage I have no argument.  But as to whether our 21st century Australian definition of legal marriage lines up with what the Bible speaks of when it talks of weddings, marriage, husbands and wives, adultery, fornication, etc., I’m not convinced.  As I understand it, historically this kind of formal State recognition of marriages is a quite recent develpoment, so I’m not sure that we can read it back into the thought world of the Bible.  In other words, you’ve yet to convince me that ‘societal recognition’ of a marriage relationship is necessarily the same thing as ‘formal government recognition’.

To date, let me make clear, I have only ever urged Christians to legally marry before they enter into a sexual relationship with another person.  But I can envisage the possibility of concluding that some alternative to legal marriage could constitute a Biblical marriage.

Bob

Bob Cameron - 09 October 2008 10:45 PM

To date, let me make clear, I have only ever urged Christians to legally marry before they enter into a sexual relationship with another person.  But I can envisage the possibility of concluding that some alternative to legal marriage could constitute a Biblical marriage.

Hey Bob & Neil (and others)

Thanks for the conversation - it’s been great.

Just wondering - is there an element of submitting to our earthly authorities that should come into our thinking?  It feels kinda hazy to me, but the thinking goes along the lines of:
1) We are told to submit to those in authority over us.  You know - like the government and stuff (Romans 13)
2) In God’s mercy, our authority has defined marraige two ways:
a) A life long union between a Man and a Woman.  This is conistent with scripture.
b) Sanctioned (authorised?) by the government.  That is - they must legally recognise it.  It’s not just a life long union, but one that is recognised by the state as marriage.
3) So we should (as much as possible) promote state sponsored marriage - so long as it continues to be consistent with the bible.

So whilst I appreciate Bob’s point about state sanction not being a necessary part of biblical marriage, whilst the state is on our side - why not do as much as we can to run with it? 

Why not say - “hey, yep, state sanction is not necessary biblically, but in God’s mercy he has given us this legal framework to work in (and thankfully upholds the biblical definition), so we should/must submit to it.”

The logic feels a little strange to me - as I seem to be merging a biblical definition with the state’s definition, whilst acknowledging they are distinct.

Mike

Mike Doyle - 10 October 2008 12:03 AM

Just wondering - is there an element of submitting to our earthly authorities that should come into our thinking?
. . . 3) So we should (as much as possible) promote state sponsored marriage - so long as it continues to be consistent with the bible.

Mike

Your point 3 is exactly where my thinking is at the moment, but I’m not sure that it arises from the tentative premise of submission to earthly authorities.

If the government of the day required Christians or Churches to only recognise legal marriage as defined by the State and nothing else, then yes, this principle would have to be taken into account.

But if a church, for example, were to consider a de facto couple as married from a Biblical point of view, I can’t see that this would be defying governmental authority in any way—unless there were some specific law that this contravened.

An example of the latter would be if I were to complete marriage registration paperwork for a couple when I had not actually conducted a marriage ceremony according to the rites of the Anglican Church of Australia—which is what I am authorised by the government to do.

Bob

Bob Cameron - 10 October 2008 01:39 AM

But if a church, for example, were to consider a de facto couple as married from a Biblical point of view, I can’t see that this would be defying governmental authority in any way—unless there were some specific law that this contravened.

At this point it’s most likely an argument about definitions.

But technically - you could be claiming people had a legal state (married) when they weren’t, as legally they aren’t actually married.

Of course - you could get around this by carefully saying we “consider” you married - though you aren’t.

As an amusing sidepoint: I had friends who got back from their honeymoon and went to get something from the government as a married couple - and they were told - “but you’re not married”, and were refused whatever it was they were after.  The minister had forgotton to submit the paperwork.  So they’d been living in Sin for several weeks (Tut Tut! ;-).  Easily fixed.

Mike

Hi Mike

It is indeed about definitions as you say.  And I think that, in the scenario I outlined, you would need to be very clear with the couple that they were not ‘legally’ married under Australian law (although it would not therefore follow that they were therefore ‘illegally’ married!).  But this does not mean that the language of marriage could therefore never be used—language is more flexible than that.

Your example (and I married a couple where something similar happened!) illustrates the issue quite well, I think.  Their marriage had not been registered, but in reality, of course, they were indeed married.

Bob

Bob Cameron - 10 October 2008 02:20 AM

It is indeed about definitions as you say.  And I think that, in the scenario I outlined, you would need to be very clear with the couple that they were not ‘legally’ married under Australian law (although it would not therefore follow that they were therefore ‘illegally’ married!).  But this does not mean that the language of marriage could therefore never be used—language is more flexible than that.

Sure - I’m pretty much on board with that.

I just wonder if a division between what our society says marriage is (at least legally) and what we define marriage as (that is, Biblically) ends up weakening marriage.  Since in a sense, by acknowledging marriage outside of the legal definition, we are in a sense removing one of the social aspects of marriage.  That is, so far we have been defining a social aspect of marriage - that it is public declaration.  Our society has said this is done in a legal way by registering it.  By allowing marriage without the legal registration, we remove one of the ways our culture recognises marriage.

I’m just thinking out loud here - my gut is uncomfortable with acknowledging a marriage outside of the legal definition.  Of course that may be a result of my conservative, conformist outlook on life ;-)

Mike

I got married on the 31st of March, so the following morning my brothers were thinking that it would be amusing to send me a text saying that there was a problem with the paperwork, and we weren’t legally married. It would have been funny as an April Fool’s joke, but I wouldn’t have cared, as I figure whilst we should do the state ‘paperwork’ thing in getting married, if you have gone through the whole church ceremony thing, then you are married in God’s eyes, and the eyes of everyone who attended.

Thanks guys, some interesting points. Let me make a few legal comments.
(1) The lost paperwork cases are not cases where the couple concerned remain unmarried. In effect under Australian law once you go through a formal ceremony of marriage, and at least one of the persons undergoing the ceremony believes that the person solemnising the marriage is authorised to do so, then the marriage is a valid marriage. (To justify this advice completely I would have to boringly cite various bits of the Marriage Act, but see s 48(3) for the perhaps surprising view that only one of the parties needs to believe the celebrant is authorised). Of course someone who pretends to be an authorised celebrant, but is not, commits a serious criminal offence- but the marriage would still be valid.
(2) There is a great danger, it seems to me, in a celebrant telling a couple that they are “married in the eyes of the church” etc but not actually legally married under the law of Australia. The danger is that whatever is said people will not hear it properly or not remember it, and assumptions will be made that could have disastrous legal consequences later.
So, while I concede that as far the Bible is concerned any “public” ceremony recognised by society would do, I would seriously doubt the wisdom of conducting a ceremony that did not conform with Australian law. One of the more minor complications is that s 113 of the Act makes it an offence to go through with, or conduct, a second marriage ceremony (even with your own spouse) unless quite specific requirements set out there are complied with.
Regards
Neil F

One thing that has been overlooked is the children. 

Why should a mother walk away from the father of her children if he doesn’t want to marry her?  OR the other way around.

My grandfather always used to say to me if I was disrespectful to either of my parents and that is I only have one mother or father and no one else would love me like they will.  I’m sure the Lord would want the children to be looked after by their parents, not denied that through a separation.

I agree the parent who is saved should ask the other parent to marry them.

I also think it is true God works through GRACE. 

This is a hard one we don’t want to be legalistic.

Milica Cook - 18 October 2008 09:50 PM

One thing that has been overlooked is the children.

An important matter Milica, but not one that has been overlooked.  See Craig T’s original post, along with posts 2, 3, & 11.
Bob

People in de facto arrangements should be pushed. I know of a de facto couple that converted and married after being convicted of the wrongness of their living situation. Still very happily married after many years. Bear in mind, there is NOTHING to say that the converted Christian must stop seeing them; it would wrong to completely sever ties unless it dragged them into sin. They should just stop sleeping with them and cohabiting. :)

Kids don’t really change things. Are you really modelling the relationship that God wants the little ones to have in the future? No? Time to rethink that relationship.

Bob Cameron - 18 October 2008 10:43 PM

Milica Cook - 18 October 2008 09:50 PM

One thing that has been overlooked is the children.

An important matter Milica, but not one that has been overlooked.  See Craig T’s original post, along with posts 2, 3, & 11.
Bob

Thanks Bob, I must admit I didn’t thouroughly read all the posts only some before posting and I missed these.

Leigh Hardwick - 19 October 2008 01:33 AM

People in de facto arrangements should be pushed. I know of a de facto couple that converted and married after being convicted of the wrongness of their living situation. Still very happily married after many years. Bear in mind, there is NOTHING to say that the converted Christian must stop seeing them; it would wrong to completely sever ties unless it dragged them into sin. They should just stop sleeping with them and cohabiting. :)

Kids don’t really change things. Are you really modelling the relationship that God wants the little ones to have in the future? No? Time to rethink that relationship.

I know of a defacto couple that were pushed to marry and got divorced. Just because one couple have stayed together doesn’t mean the method of pushing people to Obey God is right. You can’t push people to accept Christ as their Lord and Saviour.  God gives us a choice to receive Christ or reject Him it is their choice to Obey God or to continue in Sin.  I’m not saying that they aren’t sinning.  We all continue to Sin in one from or another even after we come to Christ because none of us become perfect and without Sin until we get to Heaven.

Now the Minister of the Church the couple is attending has a right to speak with them and counsel them and if they are not changing even ask them to leave.  A Minsiter needs to confront those who are blatantly Sinning and not wanting to change. 

It’s not my place to do that but as you said Leigh I certainly would as a congregation member that had a relationship with the couple be encouraging them to understand that the Lord desires us to now live our lives in obedience.  I would take the time to share with them if my level of relationship was close enough & I would say it si not right to remain unmarried.

The big problem is when one spouse (I hate the word partner) is a Christian and the other is not.  You have children together and there are no reasons to leave the realstionship except the issue of marriage.  If is was just you then you would leave but what about the children??

I have friends in this situation.  They have left Church because of the pressure but not given up their faith.  They go to a Ladies Fellowship group (not Sunday Church Services) where they can go without being hassled to get married.  I don’t know the answer. I have just remained friends with them and I encourage them in their faith and pray with them and for them.

Good on you Milica for sticking with your friends, and I totally agree that sometimes it is difficult to work out what to do. I also agree with you that “pushing” people to be godly is the wrong approach if that involves ungodly pressure (and I’m sure Leigh wasn’t advocating that.)
In the long run, though, I still think that someone who wants to serve the Lord Jesus, but who is living with someone who is the father of their children without being married, should stop sleeping with that person. They should do this on the basis that sex is for marriage. This of itself will not directly affect the kids, though of course it may precipitate a crisis in the relationship. But such a crisis will be necessary anyway, as allegiances are realigned. And it may (though of course not always) result in the other person realising their own need for the Lord. At the very least it will show them how seriously their “partner” (I actually think the word is OK here where we are talking about unmarried people) takes their commitment to Jesus.
Still, sorting all that out doesn’t necessarily mean, at least immediately, that the couple will stop living together in the general sense of sharing a household. And the godly response of a local church fellowship would be to support someone working this out, I think, not to pressure them to take rushed action.
Regards
Neil F

Some thoughts on theological principles which may help us find a way forward in this situation and the way in which they might be expressed.

1.  We can only repent of our own actions, not the actions (or lack of action) of others.

2.  Any Christian ethical system must make room for what Michael Hill calls a ‘retrieval ethic’.  This does not mean we excuse sin, but it does mean that in certain circumstances Christians have to make the best of a less-than-ideal situation.  I believe there are hints of a retrieval ethic in 1 Corinthians 7, in that the (new?) Christian is to remain with their non-Christian spouse even though in verse 39 Paul warns his readers against entering this particular scenario should they have the opportunity to do so. Can this principal be extended to long-term de facto relationships, particularly when children are involved? 

Putting these principles together I would encourage those with pastoral responsibility to spend some time making sure the new Christian in the relationship has a well thought out theology of marriage and relationships.  It would not be helpful for a zealous convert to immediately present their partner with a ‘marry me or else’ ultimatum simply because they have been told it is the right thing to do.  Indeed, I would encourage them to begin any discussion by focussing on their own actions along the lines of “As I’ve come to have a relationship with God I’ve come to see our relationship in a new light.  God has committed himself unconditionally o me and I now realise that I’ve failed you by not doing the same in our relationship.  I would like to do this publicly in marriage.  Would you be willing to join me in this?”

The Christian would need to think through carefully how they respond to a yes/no/maybe answer.

Mark