Here’s today’s HYPOTHETICAL topic. A very common situation.
A couple asks to join your church. Well…..a non-married, living together 5 years, parenting 2 of her kids couple asks to join your church. They aren’t married because, basically, of not wanting to lose substantial child support. When that runs out next year, they tell you they will get married and they appear very serious about that.
They’ve visited your church for months. The kids are in the programs. They are in a small group. They are a great family. They just aren’t legally a married couple.
What do you do?
a) Receive them as married. (Leaning to a common law definition of marriage.)
b) Refuse to receive either as members until they repent of their sin and are married. (Rem: They have lived together as husband and wife exclusively for 5 years.)
c) Receive them as engaged.
d) Receive them as separate families.
e) Your better idea.
Special note: How do you believe Jesus would treat this couple? As married, since they are living as a married couple in every intention except government sanction or as unmarried?
Catholics: We know your answer, so you don’t need to explain it. But how would you deal with this couple in parish life?
The Internet Monk Archives 
So, I was reading about late adulthood (65+, for those of you who wonder) in my psychology text for a course I’m taking at the largest evangelical university in America and learned that many people in late adulthood are married by the church while not being married “officially” by the state. They cite reasons of complicating inheritances and increased time with lawyers. They marry for love, yes, and compaionship, rather than uniting of families.
I’m wondering, then, if people claim to be married under God and not by the state, then what we have to say about that? What if these people in iMonk’s example chose to be married in the church but not by the courts, until such a time as they choose? After all, there are people who are married by the state WELL before they marry in the church, just for the sake wanting it to be legal before getting to the church.
Just a thought that, I might guess, perhaps nobody else considered?
LikeLike
I don’t believe that they should be barred from attending any church regardless of their sin. Jesus did not ever and does not now require that we change in order to be loved and acceptedby Him or by His body.
I would invite them to attend our church, but would also explain to them the church’s beliefs concerning marriage and living together outside of marriage — and why that would cause us not to be able to offer them membership.
LikeLike
Man oh man;
So, would you say that these people’s souls are less important than a law which they obviously have little understanding of? How about driving them off before you can share with them! Would that suit you?
Jesus and the woman at the well was mentioned, but did you get the fact that He was not looking down His nose at her? Please people sit down and read some more scripture and ask Him for some compassion. Not every saint will be all cleaned up and smelling nice before you encounter them.
Nathan
LikeLike
(Responding to Derek below)
How do I get blamed for them leaving the church? I’m not a Baptist, but I can respect a Baptist church having certain criteria for membership. Clearly this hypothetical couple does not care about living in a holy marital union – or even a state-sanctioned one. If this is part of the standard that the Baptist church has set, for professing Christians, is that wrong?
It’s disingenuous to say that the church “shoots its own wounded.” We’re all wounded and (hopefully) seeking sanctification. But I can’t agree that approving of sin brings restoration to anyone.
I completely agree that tact and gentleness should be used (and thank God, I’ve never experienced the “sin management” meetings you refer to). Ideally, shouldn’t we be exhorting each other – in love and humility – to greater faith and holiness?
LikeLike
I’m not Jesus, so I wouldn’t feel comfortable telling them God loves them. I would rather Jesus tell them himself.
LikeLike
But you didn’t discover this couple’s situation through an audit or any other kind of investigation. They came to you, explained what they were doing, and now you have to deal with it.
LikeLike
I like this answer. Even if you to the “common law” definition of marriage, you still have financial fraud to deal with. Not all sins are sexual.
LikeLike
See how Paul deals with a church in the midst of a sexual scandal in First Corinthians. He preaches the Gospel again and again and again to the faithful. That’s what helps Christians most in their sanctification too.
LikeLike
Fine. They then leave the faith and blame you. In this example, how have you loved them to repentence? What kind of restoration would we be bringing to these people?
Yeah, the church is the only organization that shoots its own wounded – until they leave and seek life elsewhere.
LikeLike
I agree with the last 2 posts. They can attend, but joining is a different matter: The church in ACTS 2 was NOT open door. The new members were catechized and scrutinized. That is the problem with many evangelical churches. Pastors, elders, and deacons are GATEKEEPERS.
Being married in a church should also entail scrutiny. Too bad if you don’t like it. It isn’t a matter of taste. The church if FOR CHRISTIANS – the FAITHFUL sheep to be fed. Not capitulating to goats in their endless demands for choices and expressions of opinions.
Evangelicals — especially megachurches — wrongly treat the church and the worship as evangelism. Evangelizing the worldly DOES NOT denote letting everyone into the church. That is NOT a biblical view of the church.
I don’t mean barring from worship — or in my case, liturgy — but closed communion is a good thing. CONFESSIONS MEAN SOMETHING!! Evangelicals are way off base concerning what constitutes a church.
The consumer generations want choices. Guess what? The church is subject to JESUS” choices and his ministers.
Also breaking the law goes AGAINST Jesus AND Paul’s teachings. Pay your taxes. Obey the gov’t. THAT MEANS A MARRIAGE LICENSE. Also to imply that Jesus and Paul are at odds indicates a lack of understanding about the inspiration of ALL OF SCRIPTURES. Are there a large number of emergents on this site?
Goats don’t get to redesign the church as they see fit. Guess what I am a justified sinner. I sin every day. I confess every day. That’s what Jesus’ sheep do. We come to be fed Word and Sacrament. And when we have grave sin, we seek the guidance of the ministers of Christ’s church in brokenness. Not in ARROGANCE.
LikeLike
I thought the alimony was just as a generic reason for their actions, not intended as a significant portion of the story. If he had not included it in there, I am sure there would have been many questions as to why they weren’t getting married, and then there would be lots of speculation on all the different possible reasons they weren’t getting married right away, and then …..
I think it was just a brief bit of fleshing out the story, rather than a core part of the issue. Of course, with the various legal issues presented, it certainly seems to actually be a more significant part. However, I don’t think that was the original intent.
As for the pious sniffing about porn, I think you’re missing the point – porn was just an example of a sin which the church could do investigations to discover. If the inclusion of porn in the list sidetracks the main point for you, take it out. If you take out the word ‘porn’, I think some of your concerns lose their punch.
But, that’s just me.
Disclaimer- in spite of the similarity of names, I am not InternetMonk. I had my name first, and I’m not changing! 🙂
LikeLike
Maybe I’m confused by what it means to “join” your church. This couple can attend regularly, pay your tithe, hang out at the summer BBQ, join a small group, sing in the choir, do the Sunday readings, etc.–they are baptized, right? I would think “joining” means that their names are on your rolls for church census, so what’s the difference? But if joining is the same as asking that their way of life be judged acceptable by the church, then yeah it’s an issue. If they were heading toward leadership positions, for example, I would hope the pastor would speak to them about their qualifications.
I would think pastoral responsibility would require understanding what joining means to them, what it mean to your congregation, and how best to respond in God’s grace for that situation.
LikeLike
It is shocking to me how many voices disavow state sponsored marriage, who seem not to bat an eye at state-issued divorce decrees. Take the state out of the equation entirely, who is this woman’s husband?
LikeLike
I can’t even believe the rationalizing of sin in most of these posts — this couple is UNREPENTANT. The church abides for those who confess and repent their sin — daily. This couple seems to have a nice, worldly plan and you church folks better not mess with it? Am I reading it as callously as it seems?
They seem unfazed by their sin, NOT broken by it. Maybe it’s the succint wording. This is what the old timers called “cheap grace.”
The church is for believers. It’s not a recruiting station for everyone who needs generic “community.”
The rationalizing is so disturbing. Rightly dividing the Word means the LAW and the GOSPEL. These folks are NOT ripe for the Gospel because they don’t know their sin.
Just because the word “sin” causes this worldly generation discomfort doesn’t mean Christians should stop using it.
Is this really a serious discussion?
LikeLike
What about catechisis — that’s what the ancient church did – spiritual formation may be what you call it. Baptists do have a big problem with this. I’ve just left a Baptist church because the absence of any formation. Baptists leave their members in limbo. Sorry — I needed to get back to a litugical church that catechizes the faithful every week.
LikeLike
What did Jesus tell the woman at the well? All’s well as long as you get the child support. I’m seeing endorsement of sin in the face of a congregation. This is pandering to a generation or two who insist on living as they please. It’s antinomial.
Practical tips? The Word and the Sacrament. Guess what? It’s always been difficult to refrain from sexual sin. Bending in to it doesn’t make it easier.
Defrauding the gov’t. — which is what they’re doing besides sinning Coram Deo — is stealing. So – as we see with open see — sin begets sin.
Church discipline is a MARK of the church.
LikeLike
“What people do behind their doors is between them and God.”
How so? All sin affects the Body of Christ, and this sin has a direct effect on the children, (plus society at large). Would you say that a thief’s sin behind closed doors is just between him and God? A child abuser?
“Further, the new husband isn’t responsible for the children as much as we think he is – according to law. In the context of one’s faith, perhaps.”
But according to the example, this couple is acting like they’re a married couple and are co-parenting these two kids. And the kids get a mixed message: This man is okay for Mom to be living with, but not good enough to be a husband or a real father figure until child support runs out. What is up with that?
And I don’t think 1 Corinthians 10 is simply rhetoric. It might be inconvenient or truly hard to live so as not to bring down our brothers and sisters, but it’s something we have to be aware of.
LikeLike
No. No marriage, no membership. Moving in together and pretending to have a marital relationship for financial reasons is still sin. What message are you sending to unmarried couples – if it’s financially better, go ahead and live together? What message are you sending their children – we’re going to bless your parents’/stepparents’ sinful arrangement so as to not lose money? They should not move in together and “play house” unless they are married. You can add all the circumstantial criteria you want, but at its root, it’s premarital sex and sinful. The “common law” defense is a weak justification for sinful behavior. Plus, as a lawyer, I can tell you if they start calling themselves married via common law, that child support is in danger of being lost anyway. And, I don’t care if they swear on a stack of 20 bibles that they are not having sex, they are still holding themselves out as a married couple when they are not, which is deceitful in and of itself. One more lawyer thing, I would also suspect their story because it is unusual for child support to be waived at remarriage. It is not unusual for alimony/maintenance for the spouse to be waived at remarriage, but generally the biological support-paying parent is responsible for payment until the child reaches 18 or 21. I would ask to see the divorce decree.
LikeLike
Preaching/gathering/ordination aren’t institutions under state sanction and they are not secular social institutions in the same way marriage is (at least here in the United States).
When I officiate at a marriage ceremony, I am signing off on a state-issued license, which in turn obligates the spouses legally to each other. There is no such equivalent with the other rites, sacraments or other religious duties that I perform.
LikeLike
Further, the new husband isn’t responsible for the children as much as we think he is – according to law. In the context of one’s faith, perhaps.
I’ve been part of too many “sin management” Elders’ meetings that it makes me want to vomit.
LikeLike
That’s their own message to send. And I’m tired of the rhetoric about “causing others to stumble” (especially with the whole alcohol thing) and “people believing you’re doing evil”.
What people do behind their doors is between them and God.
LikeLike
I completely agree on all points! but don’t we often get hung up on these same things? your last sentence in the comment above is exactly how I would begin talking to them about their motives. I would simply say…”you are knowingly not doing what you believe you ought to do marriage-wise, and money is your sole motivating factor. The bible specifically states that if you know to do well and you do not then ‘to you’ it is sin. I strongly encourage you to seek in your hearts to do the right thing that you have already determined in your heart, and trust God to handle the money”
however, still in my opinion not a matter of membership or not… simply because the concept of membership to me has nothing to do with their spiritual status with God. Or my ability to speak into their lives.
Thanks for the great dialog here! I know my response made a lot of assumptions, but I am hoping they only sufficed to make the point. sweeping generalizations can only take us so far in hypothetical situations! 🙂
LikeLike
Oh, yeah. My answer. A). If common law marriage is legal in a state, and the church to which they want to pledge membership is in that state… and God has ordained the government… then they are legally married.
Give them membership.
LikeLike
“They aren’t married because, basically, of not wanting to lose substantial child support. When that runs out next year, they tell you they will get married and they appear very serious about that.”
I’m going off the facts stated. They may believe themselves married, but we don’t know that from what was given.
State approved? I wouldn’t go that far, but I would say publicly approved. Yes, you must stand before your society and make the declaration. Both for the couple and for society.
LikeLike
I’m not Jesus, so I wouldn’t feel comfortable telling them they are sinners. I would rather Jesus tell them himself.
LikeLike
“I continue to shake my head in disbelief as an entire generation of Christians sees nothing wrong with living together and having sex before marriage. How did we let this situation become the norm within our churches?”
The church I went to preached the evils of sex outside marriage, and stressed that one could only have sex if they were married. Yet they also preached that one must give up anything that gets in the way of your relationship with God, like relationships with the opposite sex. Anyone who dated would get disapproving comments like “You need to spend more time with God and less time with this person…”
So my church preached that fornication was bad, yet they were terrible when it came to encouraging people to find someoen and marry. they did exactly the oppostive, they discouraged dating and made anyone who did feel guilty about it.
The church tells us can’t have sex before marriage, but it doesn’t help us to address that issue constructively, like it doesnt’ teach practical things like how to find a christian mate, it jsut tells us some platitude like ‘let go and let God’ or something. I’ve gone to christian singles meetings where all it is is a bible study. Everyone is obviously there to meet someone, but no one wants to admit this since it will make them seem less spiritual.
So if Christians end up living together, I think it is just there way of trying to deal with the impossible position they are forced into.
LikeLike
Wow, Andy. I’m betting you won’t get a lot of this type of response, but that sucks. And I don’t think that Jesus would have responded like that. To either of you.
I never thought about the Scriptural argument you presented before. It’s amazing how much atheists actually know about Scripture. More than many followers of Jesus, actually.
Judgement is up to God. Not the church nor individual Christians.
I wish you peace.
LikeLike
Not having sex of any kind? Really? They also aren’t presenting themselves as being merely roommates.
But suppose they were truly living chastely. It seems as though this could fall into the 1 Corinthians 10:23-33 situation where their situation could cause offense to others in the church. Of course, if the church isn’t offended by it, then it’s a moot point.
I wonder about the message this sends to the children:
“The money I get from your dad is more important than living a life of virtue in marriage.”
“Marriage is optional – it’s no big deal.”
“You’re not important enough for my boyfriend [fiance? – no] to take full responsibility for in a marriage.”
Ugh.
LikeLike
I know this post is a couple days old, but I find my story related, so I would like to ask how you guys would respond to my situation.
I’m an atheist, engaged to a wondeful christian woman. When we graduated college a little less then a year ago we moved to the same city. She started looking for a church, and as I always have, I occasionally would attend with her (about once a month). The pastor at this chuch asked my fiance why I didn’t come every weekend and she told him I am an atheist.
How would you guys handle this?
After finding out about this he invited me to talk with him abour our relationship. I figured he was going to ask how we don’t let our beliefs come between us, but he spent an entire hour guilt tripping me about how she wouldn’t see me in heaven (I showed him Mark 12:18-37), and giving me many arguments that I’ve heard before and refuted on the spot. After that he spent a month calling and visiting me uninvited trying to convert me.
After all of this he finally had a womens group (the women’s ministry? I think?) hold a meeting with her and tell her that she couldn’t go through the wedding with me, because if I can’t follow god I can’t be faithful, and I must be serving satan. Needless to say she hasn’t been back
I found this whole thing ridiculous, and offensive. She has since found a church that is very welcoming of both of us, and are happy to hold our wedding.
LikeLike
Oh, yeah. My answer. A). If common law marriage is legal in a state, and the church to which they want to pledge membership is in that state… and God has ordained the government… then they are legally married.
Give them membership.
LikeLike
First, we cannot assume that living together is adultery. The assumption that this couple (POSSLQ) is having sex is just that – an assumption. Nothing more.
Second, we still have this hogwild propensity to rank sin. It’s disgusting. These people claim to know Christ, fine. But their hearts haven’t turned on this issue. That’s between them and the Holy Spirit. Not me unless God directs me to say something to them about it.
Third, we don’t know the whole story about the child support. However, by NOT marrying, they are not trusting God in His role in the court system to carry out justice. If the judge reduces child support, there’s a reason.
If these people are followers of Jesus Christ and wish to become church members for some reason or another, then let them. They are already members of the Church (and I’m not talking the RCC) anyway. The church to which they want to be members is a man-made institution. Being such, it’s their right to keep people out based on their own rules, but to say that Scripture says… is bullying with the Word of God. Nothing more. Nothing less.
And to tell them they are committing adultery is wrong anyway. A) we don’t know they were having sex (of any kind) and B) their ex-spouses may have remarried. Then there is no reconciliation of marriage expected nor required.
LikeLike
They say they’re not [legally] married. They say they plan to get [legally] married later. They recognize they currently are not [legally].
Is state marriage christian marriage? That’s my question. . .
LikeLike
Jason,
Your reply makes so many assumptions that it’s not possible to even begin to respond. Of course you’re right in a lot of what you say, but don’t assume that some of the things you lament aren’t happening/can’t happen in churches today, vis a vis close fellowship and discipline in that context a la Paul. Yes, the definition of marriage we’re talking about is somewhat cultural, and as I’ve said, I think that Christians ought to monitor current events in order to see how much longer we can continue to agree with current cultural understandings. But Anon is right in his analysis: this is a couple that knowingly is not doing what they believe they ought to do marriage-wise, and money is their sole motive.
LikeLike
All this debate about when people are actually married, although interesting in the abstract, is irrelevant to iMonk’s hypothetical. His hypothetical people know they’re not married. It’s not that they think they’re married, act accordingly, and just haven’t filed the right paperwork — they know they’re not married. And they’re intentionally remaining unmarried because to marry would cost them money. I think you could pose a hypothetical that does raise a lot of the points people are making — but this one doesn’t.
LikeLike
I have to say that I am somewhat disturbed by the presumptions of fraud, criminal behavior, and “revenge” that I am seeing in this thread. I agree that the case study could have offered a better explanation of the child support issue, which is why I kept asking so many questions. But I am puzzling over why so many people felt is necessary to “fill in the gaps” in a way that puts this couple in the worst light possible.
Now I am just as guilty of this sort of thinking as anybody, believe me. But I have to wonder why anyone would want to join a church whose members and leaders will, if they lack information, automatically assume the worst case scenario until proven otherwise.
LikeLike
JohnO
You make the error of treating grace and truth like two equal but opposing forces. They are not in tension, they are the twin hallmarks of Christ and it is weird how Christians seems to feel the need to apologize for either one or the other.
What can be more “loving” than holding up the beauty of marriage against soul-numbing fornication? You call this “preaching the ‘wrongs of such behavior” and you will tolerate it as long as it doesn’t interfere with “living out the gospel.” Such frank confrontaion is,rather, an integral and necessary element of true Christian love.
Withholding fellowhip under certain situations is not living out the gospel? I guess you decided to ignore certain parts of the New Testament.
LikeLike
Is membership management even a function of the church? there is either fellowship or there is not. And there is particular discussion about fellowship that handles “Sin” however Christianity has gone to great extent (much like the pharisees in Jesus day) to “define” a lot of things. The truth is that God has defined everything that is necessary and has left grace to handle the details. So where do you say that sin is in this situation? The fact that they have not married as you think it should be defined? or you would rather wait until the state disqualifies itself as a standard and then set your standard for marriage? The fact is that the union of a man and woman sexually is recognized by almost every society as a consummation of marriage. It is also demonstrated quite often in the bible somewhat loosely as “a man taking a woman into his house” so to speak. So defining marriage further than that is only straining at a gnat, we could go ahead and swallow the camel by believing that “church membership” is somehow something that we can give or take away.
I fully believe that those who act in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ should be disciplined, but honestly if this was a known issue it should have already been an ongoing conversation with the couple before this point. The problem with this whole premise is that these days the church would rather rule by exception. Why get involved in peoples life when you can just wait for problems to pop up and deal with them then? The discipline that Paul discussed that you refer to was not the church discipline that we see today. The reason was that people were deeply involved in each others lives… they gave from their hearts so that the could live with “all things in common” they met in each others homes and ate together on a regular basis…It was very apparent when someone was acting inappropriately and Paul’s instructions were to immediately go to them and speak to them in love; not as the moral police. If the erring individual were to resist then two brothers, then several, then the elders would become involved. This is not an inquisition or punishment but a heartfelt reaction to a fellow believer that has lost their way. If the erring individual were to still resist guidance and exhortation then the church was to inform them that they could not maintain fellowship for to do so would be to condone their behavior. This loss of fellowship in those days was a very real and very painful thing… and often was enough to provoke the erring brother to repent. The church these days is so self focused and we as Americans are so self seeking that we wouldn’t even think to sacrifice what we have for the good of another without a thorough background check and then nobody will be selling any land for sure… at best you get whatever is left over after our own quality of life is maintained. So if this couple has been in your church for several months their kids are hanging out with your kids and you still haven’t had conversations about their lives and you hope to “discipline” them you have failed at your job already. The sad part is that when you enact your “discipline” you haven’t even invested enough time in their lives for them to feel a loss when you attempt to explain why they can’t join your morality club. So they leave hurt, and find another “seeker friendly” church that accepts all comers; post modernism wins another battle over Christianity due to a dysfunctional and impotent church. Jesus’ focus was on people… he hung out with prostitutes that openly practiced their sin. He chose to eat with them because he valued their souls…He did not condone their sin,he made no excuse for them, yet he put no conditions on them. He earned their love and in turn their trust, and he changed their lives. So while the Pharisees were counting their membership rosters and deciding who was in and who was out. Jesus was attending weddings, visiting friends, literally hanging out in the slums, talking to prostitutes, cheats and low-lifes and some how managed to have the most profound impact of any man in the history of the world…all without a membership list.
LikeLike
imonk,
you are being disingenious. Why put the child support “issue” in your hypothetical if it has no relevance? As for your pious sniff at those who find porn viewing relevant, what if we are talking about child porn? Or worse porn? Or are words like “worse” too judgmental for you?
Grace is good and one is not Pharisaical who finds his brother in a pit and seeks to help him climb out. Sometimes the first step out of a pit is when some nice person takes the risk of being called judgmental and shines a flashlight on you and shows you that , hey, your’e in a pit.
LikeLike
Incidentally, I did not necessarily suggest that the divorced couple should reconcile, although that would be ideal. I merely stated that the original marriage vows should be honoured. Reconciliation is not necessary for that, and indeed, may be impossible or inadvisable in the case of serious abuse. And there are plenty of people doing it, right now, often in very difficult circumstances.
(Also, as far as I can tell I am the only person to have actually quoted scripture so far. The very words of Christ. How easily they are ignored when the teaching is hard! And how quickly we turn to other authorities when we can’t accept that teaching: “legally divorced”; “most Christian communions say”; “John MacArthur agrees”.)
LikeLike
I disagree. The Marriage has been abandoned. The Children have been abandoned by the Father to some degree as has the Wife. That the Parents and Step-parent are all on good terms in a situation similar to this one is all fine and dandy, but we still have a case of someone leaving rather than cleaving. That leaves a Husband-less Woman and Father-less Children.
In a forgotten definition, “husband” means “care” and “nurture”. Some Agricultural Colleges and Universities still teach Animal Husbandry; how to care and nurture your flock/herd. I submit, and Ephesians 5 backs me up, that this is the true role and meaning behind the word “Husband”.
So, whether the Husband has died as in ceased to live, or the Husband has abandoned, as in ceased to care and nurture his Family, I think the case can be made that this Wife and Mother is widowed and her Children have been made orphans. Another Man has assumed the role of Husband and Father in their life…witness that he, as Head of the House, is ensuring their attendance in church on a Sunday and their participation is it’s activities. Not a bad thing in and of itself. Ideally, this arrangement needs to be formalised in a covenantal relationship; this Family needs to be taught what *real Family* looks like. And if this costs them dearly the Church could pick up the slack. I understand the fear that may be stopping them…I was a literal Widow as in Dead Husband. We need to teach that God means what He says and reliance on the State to help us and fix our problems is incorrect.
We have a God Who is true; He has left us a Family that does amazing things given half a chance.
In any case, quibbling over semantics really doesn’t change the role of the Church…or those of us IN the Church…in caring for those who need our care, our mercy, our substance. The parable of the Good Samaritan comes to mind…
LikeLike
B. Sorry, not even that hard a call. That’s not to deny grace; it’s simply not to cheapen it. Understand, there is a difference between welcoming people into the worship service, small groups, etc., and placing the imprimatur of membership on them. Sure, there are folks who have “secret sins” who are members in good standing–but when those “secret sins” become public, then church discipline is in order. To refuse membership to a couple that’s shacking up (since this is theoretical, I’ll use the crude term) is nothing more or less than church discipline; it’s simply applied before the fact rather than after.
I say this as a person who considers himself a libertarian, who believes (as some on this post) that the state ought not be the biggest definer of marriage. That said, so long as Christians can/do consider the state to have such a function–as I do until the time when “gay marriage” becomes the law of the land and so radically redefines marriage as to be unacceptable–then those who do not submit to that culturally-accepted definer of marriage–particularly for the reason of a loss of child support–ought not be accepted into membership.
LikeLike
great point! technically marriage to my knowledge is a social construct that has been adopted by the church.. (possibly to boost contributions?) but in heaven we are neither married or given in marriage… so what does that mean ultimately? and are we actually placing the emphasis on the right thing? I know its going to tick off a lot of Christians when they realize they fought to define marriage for years, and God is like…” Meh… that wasn’t really the point!” I mean he pretty much already shows how much it matters in heaven… It doesn’t. Now the principals of honesty, integrity, loyalty, love, forgiveness, and all the things that comprise a marriage, I can see those mattering to him. The reason God hates divorce is because of the damage it causes, and the hurt that it brings to everyone involved, the same with adultery and fornication. Its not that sex is wrong, its what we make it when we serve ourselves and abuse others. Sex is about “consummation” a joining and commitment that happens spiritually, emotionally, and physically. Treating that “consummation” as unimportant is the beginning of the slippery slope of becoming numb spiritually, emotionally, and physically to the influence of “LOVE” which is the very nature of God, if we become numb to the influence of Love then how can we “Love the Lord God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself”? I think we all know the answer to that question, but just in case you are missing my point. We cannot feel loved if we cannot give love and if we cannot feel or give love then we are completely ineffective in the kingdom.
LikeLike
THANK YOU, Ryan. I continue to shake my head in disbelief as an entire generation of Christians sees nothing wrong with living together and having sex before marriage. How did we let this situation become the norm within our churches?
dumbox said: “Seems unfair. There are probably other members committing far worse private sins which aren’t so obvious to the public.”
Very true, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t exhort each other to holiness by tackling the sins that we do see. Aren’t we obliged to seek a higher standard?
LikeLike
I lived with my wife before we were married (and I lived with another girl before that). Our marriage has lasted for 18 years while many of our friends have gotten divorced, sometimes twice.
When I got married, the whole thing about it being a sacred relationship ordained by God, etc. etc. didn’t enter my mind for one second. It was a commitment to my wife and religion had nothing to do with it, other than we got married by a preacher (in the chapel of a casino in Las Vegas; it was the first time I’d ever seen a female rev.) and we recited the standard vows.
It would seem to me that if marriage was an arrangement that comes from God, there would be a difference in the divorce rates between those who are religious and those who are not. But there isn’t. Therefore, if we put our engineer hats on and make conclusions from the data, what do we conclude?
LikeLike
I have to fall back on what I know, Jesus said love the Lord your God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself, on all this hangs the law and the prophets. In this case, The couple has already committed to each other so the marriage in my opinion is legitimate. I would however encourage them to avoid taking advantage of the ex-husband as soon as possible, regardless of whether he is in agreement with the arrangement, the couple should by all accounts attempt to allow the ex-husband to move on with his life also, if he continues to contribute willingly and outside of the family support system this will benefit his relationship with the children. I could say much more about this… but I am out of time. This is a good subject, They are welcome in my church.
LikeLike
Ever read 1 Corin 5? We are not to judge the outside world but we are to judge those in the Body in willful consistent sin who call themselves a brother. (according to some, this does not include me because I am a sister. Just kidding)
I do have a question about this couple. Are they fornicating or committing adultery? Or do we define their relationship by their time together and living together? Would we have to change our definition of marriage in order to accomodate them?
LikeLike
if they have a religious ceremony but not a civil one, to me they are married. I just still don’t get why we as Christians are concerned with civil marriage so much… This is my same reason I’m not as up in arms as some over the topic of Gay Marriage…. what our government decides to define marriage as, has absolutely nothing to do with me, because I am more concerned about religious marriage and not civil marriage… (After all, we aren’t up in arms trying to stop divorce law to only allow Christian reasons for divorce are we?)
LikeLike
My wife and I were in need of extra services for our son a couple of years ago. We talked with a counselor, who told us she’d get much more services if we divorced or separated. We didn’t.
Maybbe, as Christians, we should be advocating for changes in social services that ENcourage marriage instead of DIScouragind it.
LikeLike
Hmm, your example pointed out that they told the pastor. The pastor did not do a background check. In passing, most insurance companies do require a background check nowadays for anyone your church hires or who volunteers in one of several areas of the church.
To Lainie, let me point out that many states do have divorce laws that reduce the child support when the custodial parent remarries. The legal assumption is that the new spouse is not simply marrying a divorced person, the new spouse is also taking responsibility for a family. Since the new spouse does become a parent (a step-parent), and participates in the raising of the child(ren), and has legal rights with regard to the children, this is not bad law.
That type of law also makes it more financially possible for the non-custodial spouse to be able to afford to re-marry in their own turn, and perhaps support their own step-children.
Thus a divorced spouse who deliberately remains unmarried in order to keep up child support is more likely to be doing it for revenge reasons than for financial reasons. And, the new non-legal stepparent may be trying to shirk some of his/her responsibility. And, this is indeed a Christian point that the pastor needs to deal with.
LikeLike
My first thought upon reading your comment was, “What a powerful opportunity to practice ‘true religion’ taking care of widows and orphans. A church could do worse than be known for such things.
LikeLike
It takes more than love to make a marriage. It takes honor and respect and even, inspiring awe. And what does living together in front of their impressionable children say about the sanctity of marriage? I thought marriage, for the Christian, was supposed to picture the love of Christ for His Bride, the Church. “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. (Eph. 5:25) And how did Christ love His Bride? Christ went the distance for His Bride. “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8) Marriage is supposed to be the earthly picture of God’s heart for us. God wants to “marry” us! How much more inspiring than God just wanting to live with us!
LikeLike
Everyone?
LikeLike
What do you think “judging” entails exactly?
LikeLike
used to be, but we have taken over that portion of His duties, we were afraid He would be to forgiving.
LikeLike
Please tell me what the sacrament of marriage really is?
LikeLike
Another religion. Not Christianity.
LikeLike
I find it interesting that everyone here passes judgment on this theoretical couple. I thought judging was God’s job.
LikeLike
This is becoming a situation with seniors who do not want to lose full benefits when they combine their retirement incomes.
I am a traditionalist. They should marry. Think of the message this sends the kids and the other kids at church. Not good. I am trying to figure how to explain this to my 8 year old when she finds out they are not married. And kids always find out.
LikeLike
Well-stated, JohnO.
LikeLike
You can still accept them while telling them it’s wrong.
LikeLike
Easier said than done. Her first husband is still dead. So, why should she give up benefits that were accorded to her? Life insurance policies do not require pay back of money if the spouse remarries.
LikeLike
she should put love above money, and yes her knew husband should be taking care of her
LikeLike
Take a young war widow from Iraq or Afghanistan. If she remarries before age 55, she stands to lose a substantial amount of financial support — for some $3,000 a month. Why? Because our payments to war widows are based upon a outdated legislation crafted during an era when men took care of women. She will lose this not because her husband isn’t as dead as the day the CACO showed up, but simply because it’s expected that her new husband will provide for her. What should the Christian war widow do? Marry before the eyes of the state and lose the benefits that her husband’s life and death earned her? Or live in sin? Or perhaps head to the Bahamas, marry there and not report it to the state here?
LikeLike
Yeah, he recommended I consult a local family/probate lawyer, and I probably will.
I don’t want to leave this couple out to dry.
And maybe we can’t do an end-around.
Maybe that means we do a state-sanctioned marriage and eat her medical bills. Churches need to put their money where their mouth is, and I don’t want to pastor one that asks people to bear a burden we’re not willing to help them carry.
LikeLike
I wonder what the actual mechanics would be of such a charge? For example, if I claimed to perform a legal marriage in the eyes of the state, yes. But if I said “We as a congregation recognize that a marriage exists and choose to treat you as such,” it would be a tough sell to any court.
LikeLike
A lawyer-type person did some legwork for me today.
Turns out if I perform a marriage ceremony in my state for a couple with no marriage license, apart from state sanction, I can face up to six months in jail and a $300 fine.
The couple would face prosecution as well.
LikeLike
Read CS Lewis on marriage in Mere Christianity. Very pertinent.
LikeLike
Is marriage simply an agreement between two consenting adults? I’m not begging the question. It just seems to smack of “Just me and Jesus” American pietism, where meaning and value are within the context of personal preference. If the church has no role in sealing, blessing, and supporting a marriage union, then the church shouldn’t even bother asking whether or not a couple is married. It leaves me still wondering what is the purpose of church in the context of American wild-west, rugged individualistic culture. Is everything “none of your business”? The definition of church seems to continue to drift toward an entitlement-doling service organization: just give me what I’ve got coming to me, and butt out of my life. Sounds so much like C.S. Lewis’ depiction of hell, with everyone moving away from each other as far as they possibly can.
LikeLike
Ryan,
If I might pick up your question, which is a very legitimate one.
I think there is a difference between accepting something in grace with a view to nudging it in the right direction and condoning it. That may simply be a matter of semantics, but it is in continuing to preach the ‘ideal’ of the gospel that those who are in such relationships and behaviour are convicted of its authority.
So carry on preaching the ‘wrongs’ of such behaviour but never let it be a barrier to the love of God shown to those involved. Withholding fellowship (and again, I’m aware that this is an issue of membership not fellowship, but withholding one would, I suspect, result in the other) is not showing God’s love; it is not demonstrating God’s grace; and it is not living out the gospel.
And it also needs to be made clear to those who would potentially misread your actions that there must always exist this tension between accepting people into the community of God and continuing to be a prophetic voice speaking into people’s life. And that, I believe is simply part of the process of a maturing faith.
LikeLike
(Sorry if this appears to be out of order, but I didn’t see a reply option for Michael’s clarification regarding the child support issue.)
If the couple has refused to get married because the father of the children is threatening to go back to court to reduce payments, I guess my emphasis would be on working with this family to help them understand how they have made, and continue to make, choices. What’s done is done, and I am not inclined to condemn them for buckling under the threat of reduced child support. I do, however, want to explore with them why they were willing to adopt a lifestyle that they knew many Christians condemn when there were other options available.
LikeLike
I think the missing word is ‘concubine’. The OT certainly understands the concept and it seems to fit neatly between ‘marriage’ and ‘sin’. This estate no doubt comes short of perfection, but the Sermon on the Mount shows us all how high the bar of perfection is fixed. It is possible to see a hint in I Thess 4:5 that even a first marriage that is contracted out of lust may come short of the glory of God.
LikeLike
Perhaps you could emphasize the positive nature of commitment, legal and financial protection, and the mystical / sacramental aspect of marriage.
LikeLike
What counts as a “covenant to become one”? If two fifteen-year-olds promise to love each other forever…? (Defining “sex” raises additional issues, if you’re going to go that route.)
However marriage is defined, it should at least be clear to people whether they are married. I’m afraid the above understanding would bring only confusion.
LikeLike
Good poin willow,
but in most baptist churches there are not levels of membeship, if one is a member they have “full rights and fellowship of the church” which means they can hold any office they are scripturally qualifed for
LikeLike
Amen Ryan, Amen
LikeLike
Not popular but tell them with compassion that the church, being made up of regenerate membership, can not accept into membership someone who is knowingly living in open sin. Now, if we don’t agree that this sort of co-habitation is sin, then this discussion really has no common point to start debate.
But, just as the church could not or should not tolerate someone who is already a member living in such a way that is unscriptural, again if some of you think the church has no right to hold it;s members to any sort of behavioral standard this discussion is off the tracks right away, the church can not welcome some one into membership who is living in such a manner.
I’ve had this exact same situation a couple of years ago, the couple came to me, they were both recent converts, very poor living together, they said they wanted to join, I explained to you exactly what i have written above, they said they understood completely and asked if I could help with the marriage.
i said yes, and the church actually helped this very poor, young couple have a nice wedding in the church with a reception. After they were married they joined and were welcomed into membership.
The church did its part in guiding and discipling, we were compassionate, understanding, yet true to srcripture.
LikeLike
Great question! You certainly can, but you’ll be a hypocrite…worse thing in the world to the worldly-minded. That will be the new reason to go down the road to the more modern (worldly) and accepting (apathetic) church. At best, those kids will feel awfully alone with their lustful pressures (New and Improved with 50% less Guilt!) if even the church leaders accept fornication, cohabitation, etc. Eventually, they’ll decide I’ve already got the lust and the guilt; might as lose the pressure. That’s what I did.
LikeLike
Just a question: Would Jesus tell both people that they are committing adultery and that they need to repent of their sin? Jesus was willing to call sin “sin” but we are not willing to do the same.
LikeLike
By this logic all communions should be fully open to even non-professors of the the faith, and prisons should be empty relics. That’s a very destructive cynicism.
I think we should be careful to make distinction between depriving people of full communion (joining a church), and sentencing them.
I haven’t read quite all the comments, but well over half and I have yet to see the relevant argument about the state of their relationship. There’s been a bunch of talk about who is authorized to marry, and under what circumstance, etc. I don’t need to wonder what the Early Church thought about marriage because the facts given state that the couple does not see themselves as married. They say they’re not married. They say they plan to get married later. They recognize they currently are not. Whatever other peoples opinions about marriage might be, in their own hearts (the mouth speaks from the abundance…) they are not married. That ought to be the starting point.
I think I would offer them choice D, but would say there needs to be an “outward manifestation of an inward change” (move out). If they refused, then B it would be.
LikeLike
Is the couple holding themselves out as married? It sounds like they have been honest with their pastor about their marital status. I am unwilling to condemn them as criminals until I have a better idea of what their situation is.
LikeLike
Since were hypothetical, let’s say that the former husband has said “when you remarry, I will go back to court to reduce child support.”
LikeLike
How are they defrauding the woman’s former husband? If this is a case of actual child support (as opposed to spousal support), the money is being paid by a father to support his own children. The fact that one’s ex-wife has a new partner does not remove from one the responsibility to support his own children. As far as I can tell, there is no “fraud” here unless, of course, the child support is actually a form of spousal support, and even then, the fraud is a technicality, as the couple is not legally married.
I confess, however, that I am still confused as to why the child support is contingent on the mother remaining unmarried.
LikeLike
I think too many here are too “married” to a view in which marriage is a function of the state. It is not a function of the state, and never has been. This fits well with both libertarian philosophy and biblical theology, for the two are not mutually exclusive. People are married, biblically, when they make a covenant with one another to become one (and no, this is not a referenced to Reformed Covenant theology). Neither the ceremony, the marriage license, or anything else are what constitutes marriage; drop the neo-pagan American nationalism/consumerism at the door. In fact, you could biblically argue that the act of sex seals the covenant between a man and a woman. But, I guess that’s another discussion.
Anyways, many seem to miss the point. So what if they have a sin or two in their lives (especially ones easy to point out)? Do you not have one or two (or many) sins in your own lives?! Remember, when you point fingers, there are three pointing back at you, and people point to distract others from the reality of their own failed lives. Remember, don’t worry about the speck in your neighbor’s eye when there is a log in your own. Remember, the Bible teaches “one anothering” of the brothers and sisters in Christ. Why do we expect perfect people and only accept perfect people when we so full of depravity ourselves? That is neither biblical Christianity nor authentic community.
Regardless of what the law of America says, these two are husband and wife, biblically. They love one another, and the kids are being raised up well, even though their past is a battered situation. Have some compassion and sympathy. I know Jesus would.
LikeLike
Would the church recognize state sanction for ordinations? Would the church recognize state legislation on its preaching or gathering?
LikeLike
I’m uncomfortable with this option because it seems to me that marriage has always been a relationship that is recognized in specific ways by the community in which one lives (and not just the church). Since most modern American communities no longer recognize common law marriage, it seems a stretch to say that a marriage exists on the basis of a ceremony at a local church.
LikeLike
Seems unfair. There are probably other members commiting far worse private sins which aren’t so obvious to the public. I think Jesus’ handling of the woman caught in adultery was masterful; but he knew the hearts of the accusers.
There needs to be the opportunity to go and sin no more, to make steps toward resolving this. The pastor can’t feel responsible for the choices they made or the consequences; but the pastor can be patient and understanding. Instant fixes are rarely permanent. Make a plan with reasonable. flexible goals. Make sure they have opportunities for marital couseling and training. Find a mature couple willing to be mentors and friends to the couple. Make sure they are growing and being discipled. In other words, treat them as a one would any other broken, sinful. growing member of the congregation.
LikeLike
Back in the days of olde, at least here in the Ozarks, rarely was there a preacher around to do the marrying. But you had marriages just the same. Others have made that same point about those who didn’t have access to the church/state infrastructure.
As with anything else, it is what is in our hearts and what comes out our mouths day after day, year after year, that is important, not something we recited or signed at one time.
Love, not the vow, makes the marriage, beginning to end; let them be members, however you need to classify it to make it work.
LikeLike
I’m a pastor and tough situations like this come up, often. Generally, and I mean generally since each situation is taken on its own, I tell a couple to get married as soon as possible, run down to the courthouse, get the license, and we will get you married.
It has been getting hard, everyone under 30 seems to be cohabiting now. If I tell them to separate until the wedding day, or refrain from sex until them – if I tell them that their situation is not exactly God pleasing – they are offended and they run down the street looking for another church and minister to marry them – and they will find one that will. Some do not even know this is looked at as wrong by the Christian community – despite being Christian themselves.
But enough of that, I have no answer for imonk’s post because I get sick of racking my brains on all the real life situations. But I do have a question in all sincerity:
With all the comments that tend to say accept the couple as married, or be patient. Or wrangle over the definition of marriage (civil, church, etc..). In these cases what do I teach the young in the congregation about sex (premarital that is, if we can define marriage) and cohabitation. Can I tell the youth it is wrong to be living with someone, having sex with them outside ‘marriage’, what do I tell them about divorce, if I continue to accept couples in various situations like this without calling it in some way sinful and looking for repentance?
LikeLike
They are legally divorced. If your church tells legally divorced people to go back to their original spouses, that’s great. Most Christian communions say that God allowed divorce in the OT and continues to allow it for adultery and abandonment, per New Testament passages. Even John MacArthur agrees with this.
Telling couples to reconcile after divorce or remarriage is not going to be a topic on this thread. Another day.
LikeLike
How do you believe Jesus would treat this couple?
Since there is a previous marriage here, we already know what Jesus’ take on the matter would be, in his own words:
Mark 10:1-12, 17-19
I’m shocked that in nearly a hundred comments on this thread no one has even mentioned this passage yet. The original poster did not even consider it relevant to mention the existence of a previous marriage, and no one else even considered it relevant to ask. It’s like it doesn’t even exist in any of your minds. Where is the Gospel-centered approach when it comes to marriage laws? It’s the big elephant in the Protestant room.
The couple should be told as gently but as firmly as possible that they need to honour their existing marriage vows, and go and sin no more. This may require great sacrifice:
Mark 8:34
But if it didn’t, marriage wouldn’t mean anything.
LikeLike
I’ve known many of these situations where the father and the live in were on good terms and there was no contention over paying anything.
LikeLike
In a situation I’m thinking of similar to this, he’s known for years and they are all on good terms. it’s child support.
LikeLike
If I catch the “ahem” in your “ahem” … there is a difference here that is significant from a pastoral perspective. This is no witch hunt. You know the family’s situation. They are defrauding the woman’s former husband. Period. It’s as close to the Ananias and Saphira situation as I can imagine a modern situation being.
LikeLike
Come on in! We just married a couple that lived together for 3 years, two of them spent in our church. One day they wanted to make it right. How does keeping people out side spread the gospel? Faith comes by hearing, come in and hear. It is up to God to judge.
That said, this couple did not participate in leadership of any kind, or any ministries. they just needed to hear, and be loved, and the Holy spirit ministered to them. what changed lives!
We have a few works in progress like that.
LikeLike
Okay, I wasn’t sure because child support doesn’t necessarily imply a previous marriage these days.
LikeLike
Maybe forego the obsession with property and giant college like buildings and put the money in to the community in this way. I think I would want the couple to marry as soon as possible and make a new covenant with god. For me, the sex out side of marriage is a bigger issue.
I have been in situations where I faced an impossible financial situation with seemingly no way out. somehow through Gods grace and love he has pulled me through. To do it I had to trust in some things to happen after the heavy lifting was done and i had done my best. If this couple is on a course to make things right and trusting God then that is all they can do. Individual situations are all different . and when the divorce rate in the church gets way lower than society at large, then maybe we can have some credibility.
LikeLike
First I want to make it clear that divorce is clearly a sin and that sex out side the bonds of matronly is also. Secondly I have been guilty and forgiven by god of these and many other sins. However I think you might be missing the point of what the sacrament of marriage actually is. This couple are clearly “one flesh†and although I think they should solemnize there relationship before there church I think it would be more like a recognition and calibration of an existing union then the marking of a new beginning. People’s experience of living together is very different and I think there is a distinction between short term “shacking up†and long-term committed relationships. The commitment to raising children together is perhaps the key distinction. There is clearly sin in this couples relationship but I think the main problem has to do with money not sex.
Peace
Steve in Toronto
LikeLike
I wonder if every church can do a background check, financial audit and thorough moral inventory of potential members to be sure there are no tax cheats, people looking at porn, people failing to pay SS taxes to Maria the housekeeper, or taxes on unreported income. Ahem.
LikeLike
*okay, so it’s not tort law, but still.
LikeLike
This is a very good question. The couple that iMonk cited is in a different category than the couple living together. This is a couple that is deliberately breaking the law and financially defrauding the former husband. This is an ethically different situation than the couple who is living together, has children, but is otherwise behaving in an honest and aboveboard fashion.
The first couple is committing an act of criminal financial misbehavior and perjury, as well as behaving immorally. The second couple I cited is behaving immorally but not criminally. Nevertheless, even the second example is still one that needs some debate.
In the case of a couple living together and with children, but not engaging in criminal activity, they would not be allowed to be members of the Church or receive communion until the situation was fixed. However, they would be allowed to attend the public worship of the congregation and their children would be encouraged to participate in every part of the youth program, as there is no guilt on them.
LikeLike
I don’t think state sanction has much of anything to do with marriage. Marriage is a binding from God, a commitment between two people in front of their families.
My husband and I had trouble scheduling an officiant for the date of our marriage. So we went to town hall for the piece of paper months before the wedding (so not to pile everything up in one short time), and on paper we were married then. We still considered ourselves engaged and acted engaged until our actual wedding (conducted by my grandmother in front of all of our family and friends) and it is our actual wedding that we mark our anniversary by. It was when we moved in together and started our life as a family. Unless they asked about our officiant plan, they didn’t even know we were technically married months earlier, it was just paperwork to us for medical insurance and such.
That was a non-religious example (my husband was an atheist and I a somewhat lapsed christian at the time, though God has pulled me back towards him by his grace!). In a church context, I think church blessing of a marriage has far more to do with it than state. Obviously the church respects state marriages – unbelievers who were married before and convert don’t have to redo it. We respect families, and don’t suspiciously ask everyone the exact circumstances of their marriage.
I have heard of disabled people being church/family married but not legally married because the government welfare programs will cut off drug coverage from them they can’t afford even as a married couple. They give up the legal benefits of marriage for crucial government help with medical insurance, but they are otherwise leading an honest married life in front of church and family and friends.
The example you cited is more complicated, certainly on the family side. I realize its a generic example, but I think the devil is in the details of why they as a full 2-parent family need to continue bilking child support out of the biological dad against his will. (Obviously if he’s paying it voluntarily, they can just negotiate the amount that works for both families after the wedding.) I think the best path would be for them to get married and for the church to help them if poverty is an issue, so that they can be honest and aboveboard with the children’s paternal family.
LikeLike
JUICY!
When Christian Duty and Tort Law are at cross-purposes – Who Will Win??
LikeLike
Not trying to be contentious here, Michael, but I do confess to trying hard to wrap my mind around this one.
#2 above indicates that the child support has been consistent and that there has been no fight about it. I am trying to understand how uncontested child support can be curtailed simply on the basis of the custodial parent’s remarriage. It sounds as if what is being called “child support” is actually spousal support combined with child support. If I am wrong, please tell me, but child support is supposed to reflect a non-custodial parent’s contribution to the support of their children, and a remarriage should affect this.
#1 is also a concern. I’d like to know how they came to the decision to cohabitate. Were they not involved in a church at the time of the cohabitation? If they were, were they then asked to leave? I understand how people can become enmeshed in these situations, but I’d like to get some clarity as to how this couple understands the church, the community, and how they feel disciples ought to make decisions regarding their lives.
LikeLike
I have a related question for imonk: I am a family law attorney, and from my understanding of what you described (if I had more details and an understanding of the state law it might be different) she is committing criminal fraud by taking alimony (which this has to be, child support would not be affected by a remarriage in most circumstances) meant for an unmarried woman while holding herself out as married to another man. If I knew about this and they were not my clients, according to the Rules of Professional Conduct, I would likely have a duty to turn them in to the State Attorney’s office. Say I were a member of the church and knew about this situation, and came to you, as the pastor, to ask what I should do, in my position as a public official (a member of the Bar), keeping in mind that both jail time and permanent termination of parental rights are possible consequences of this behavior (and yes, I have seen both happen, though rarely).
LikeLike
B : This is serious and I think we have lost touch with the sacramental nature of marriage, they are in fornication if they are sexually active. Just ask any one who has played house without marriage vows, ask them if the person they were with was their husband or wife, I have yet to here them referred to as such after they break up, they never say my ex-husband but rather they call it what it is, ex-lover. My mother in law couldn’t believe how different she felt after marrying her long time live in boy friend, Jesus made the distinction to the woman at the well because it is a power sacrament that binds people together in a mysterious way.
LikeLike
At last … truth and sanity.
Debates over issues like this one are one of the many reasons why I am departing from my Evangelical Protestant roots and becoming Catholic. The teaching of the Church in these matters is clear and authoritative and ultimately the most loving, full of grace and truth.
LikeLike
But a woman who has a living ex-husband and a current common-law husband is not a widow. And a child who is living with a father figure and who has a biological father who pays child support is not an orphan.
LikeLike
John,
I agree with you about the laws. If I wrote what I think about them and those who make them without thinking about the consequences, I’d be banned. GRIN.
LikeLike
Yes. Her, hence the child support.
LikeLike
I have a couple additional comments to make. First it’s interesting to see how evangelical culture has shifted on the whole issue of “living together†I never sensed any kind of stigma during my period of “living in sin†apart from ironically my parents (this may because everyone know we wanted to get married but were being prevented from doing so by my ex-wife’s legal machinations) however I suspect there is a lot of blind eyes being turned (especially in urban parishes) to young couples. In the church I grew up in our minister would not even marry a couple unless they had been living apart for a significant period of time and showed “real repentance†and to my knowledge no one has suggested that she is ineligible for remarriage due to the fact that her ex-husband is still alive.
As someone who spent 4 years paying 1/3 of my salary (that’s gross not net) to my ex-wife I feel as if I should say something about the fact that there is a strong probability that this couple is committing fraud at the expence of her ex husband. Keep in mind that the man who was blackmailing David Letterman did it primarily because he was driven into deeply into debt by extravagant child and spousal support payments. I found writing those check to my ex wife to be both emotionally and financially devastating. It is important to make sure that the church does appear to be indorsing the exploitation of her ex husband.
LikeLike
Have either of them been previously married?
LikeLike
That reminds me of another situation Paul probably had to face during his ministry: polygamy.
Back in the day, it was not uncommon to bump into polygamist families in the church. Up to the time when Jesus was born, this was common practice, even amongst the Jews.
In the Early Church, there was not a “membership certificate” issued by the churches. People were loved and accepted as they confessed the Lord and became part of the fellowship. And I cannot find any evidence that these polygamists were excluded from the fellowship of the saints. However, Paul sets the standard for leadership model: the leader must be the husband of ONE wife.
I believe the same flexibility should be applied to the case in point. If a couple is not married, they should be educated on the issue and encouraged to get legally married. If they do not do it, they shouldn’t be forced or harassed to do it. That indicates there are still things from the old life that have to be purged out from them, and that happens thru discipleship, not thru a legalistic approach.
They have to be loved and accepted, not excluded or prejudiced against. However, they are not to have any leadership role in the church. They have to be discipled to grew spiritually to the point where they will naturally obey the Lord and surrender ALL areas of their lives.
LikeLike
I’d be comfortable with working with them in this situation, and perhaps even having them solemnize their covenant of marriage to each other without the sanction of the state. The Westminster Confession speaks of marriage being according to the laws of the state, but I think this would qualify as an exception to that. I see Jesus meeting people where they are, and helping them get further along.
LikeLike
For me this is not a “hypothetical” question. I am an evangelical Baptist pastor in Canada (from a Baptist stream with theological similarity to the SBC) and this is a real question dealing with a couple in my current church where I serve as the senior pastor).
In my Canadian context these couples’ “common law” status with the state basically recognizes them as married even though they’ve never had a ceremony. They have almost all the same rights and recognitions as my wife and I do, even though they’ve never signed a piece of paper. There would even be spousal support available if the relationship ended. While their legal recognition isn’t exactly the same as marriage…it is pretty close.
So in the eyes of the government they are essentially married. Their relationship is consummated and there are children…so it seems that they are joined in the eyes of God. They publically pronounce their committment to each other. They just haven’t been through a ceremony involving the community and they don’t have a piece of legal paper. Child support isn’t an issue because that relates to the children, not the parent’s relationship status.
It may be that legal realities are the same in the U.S. and this just reiterates IMonks exact same question. If so…I’m sorry. The big point is…this isn’t hypothetical. It’s a couple that just doesn’t see the need to have a ceremony or go get a piece of paper. Is there really a biblical basis on which to demand they do one or both of these things before they are welcomed as members? If so…where? Which of IMonks options applies here?
LikeLike
They’re not married. Don’t treat them as a married couple.
LikeLike
One issue that has come up here but hasn’t been addressed directly is the larger question of what to do when there are unjust laws — specifically, in this case, laws that increase economic hardship for people if they try to do the right thing. Should people be made to adhere to the letter of such laws even if it means hardship and suffering, or should we seek to change such laws so that people do not suffer for doing the right thing?
LikeLike
Just an observation: I’m seeing a whole lot of law and not a lot of Gospel… for what my opinion is worth.
Why not just welcome them into the church community and let Jesus and the Holy Spirit take on the task of changing their hearts and minds where needed, if needed at all?
The talk of marriage being a sort of “social contract” within the church seems awfully one-directional.
LikeLike
I forgot to ask, does the new “husband” see his role as father to her children? If so, then he can provide financially for them and not rely on the “old dad”. For me, this would be a great example for the children, that he takes his committment to his new family very seriously. I know it would be a great witness to the seriousness of marriage to me, much more than just living together so you can get money from a third party to live your lifestyle.
LikeLike
Amen. Although the church could perhaps budget something for the kids for aa time.
LikeLike
I would probably see if they viewed their situation as a committment between them and God or just a matter of convenience. I wish I knew all the marriage customs from Biblical times, but I’m sure it’s quite a bit different from the ones used today. I have seen many marriage ceremonies done with quite the fanfare but little committment fo a lifetime partnership before God. So I guess I would test their heart (as best as anyone can) then err on the side of grace.
LikeLike
Adding information not in the original question in order to make the couple into really bad people is not going to be tolerated.
Going to moderation for a while until the people who know more about this couple than I did when I wrote the question chill out.
LikeLike
The ex-husband/child-support …[mod edit]…needs to stop immediately. This is not living in the light no matter how you spin it.
If the couple splits the house then perhaps the church could budget a fund for the Kids.
Example: The parents could work with the church and come up with a reasonable kid-budget, and the church could then figure out how much of those expenses they can afford to support.
Meanwhile parents are living apart and enrolled in pre-engagement counseling and discipleship classes (small group) etc etc .
LikeLike
It would have to be clear on all sides that this is not a state recognized marriage and confers no legal benefits. There may be state restrictions on the minister in that he or she may not be allowed to perform state recognized marriages if they also perform something they call marriage that is not state recognized (the state has an interest in preventing confusion; think newspaper headlines of a ‘wife’ thinking she was legally married because they were married in a church and leaves the workforce to take care of her ‘husband’ until her ‘husband’ goes and marries someone else (or he dies without a will and she has no legal right to inherit)). In many cases the denomination may have rules against it (IIRC the Catholic church requires that the marriage also be legal in the eyes of the state). The church could always call it religious union instead of marriage.
LikeLike
[mod edit] They are deliberately living as a married couple apart from the rules and norms for fellowship subscribed to by their fellow believers. Moreover, they are doing so for (purely?) financial reasons. If we are serious about being holy as he is holy and if we truly believe we are commanded to bear one another’s burdens, then I believe that Laura’s solution is the best one.
[mod edit]
LikeLike
Just a note: We aren’t going to call other commenter’s suggestions insulting names. This isn’t the 5th grade.
LikeLike
add:
Many reasons for not marrying AND for not splitting. Yes The Children.
Not an easy issue.
Hopefully they will get married AND tell the ex-husband the truth because they must come clean with him.
LikeLike
The couple should be welcomed and loved as Jesus would have loved them. They should be taught, discipled , and counseled . If the couple then repents then they need to decide to either marry, or to split the house and get separate addresses (perhaps postponing or eliminating the goal of marriage ) .
Living together ( been there ) has a certain mindset that is different from marriage. People that claim to desire marriage while sharing the same address always have a very good excuse for not getting married, and when they face the truth it is often found that they have never examined the real reasons for postponing marriage. Often they themselves never looked too closely at the wjole situation.
LikeLike
that would be how i would try to handle it. what is important is the exchange of vows as expression of lifetime commitment before God and others.
LikeLike
Simple. Tell them to get married today. If they really need that extra support money for some crucial reason, tell them the church will make up the difference.
LikeLike
Pondering this right now.
We have a couple who are living together with children (their own and one they’ve taken in who is the daughter of a relative). They “look” married but are not. If they marry, because of the laws in our state, she will lose medical support for ongoing health problems. And they cannot afford to pay for this support on their own. He is a hard worker, a blue collar builder man, but times are lean and there’s not steady work. Getting legally married would sink them financially.
We think they should be married and have discussed church paying health costs. But we’re not a well-to-do congregation and the expenses, and their indefinite duration, could be more than we even collectively can handle.
I’ve thought about saying “Why not marry them in the eyes of the church and God but without state sanction?”
But that feels dishonest. Like we’re trying to do an end around the state.
Your post is timely. I have no idea what we’ll do.
But we’re also not hammering them or talking to them incessantly about this. They’re not asking for church membership. They are relatively new Christians but are growing by leaps and bounds spiritually. That’s more my concern now anyway.
LikeLike
The biological father would and should owe child support regardless of the remarriage. Is this actually alimony she would lose? That might affect how we see this. I think (c) works best.
LikeLike
Why can’t the church perform a wedding (minus state sanction) and pronounce them married?
LikeLike
I don’t mean the above statement to come across so harsh as to make it sound like every choice is easy or that there aren’t areas where because of our human limitations, things don’t appear in various “shades of gray.” I just wanted to make the point about the attitude and mindset with which we approach these questions and how important it is for the ultimate credibility of our confession to the world.
LikeLike
My opinion is that the very fact that there’s any question about this shows that we’ve fallen a long way. Conservative evangelicals get up in arms over gay marriage and start talking about the “sanctity” of marriage and quoting Bible verses, but then the same group turns around and winks at widespread divorce and cohabitation amongst its members and leaders. How do we expect the world to take anything we say seriously if we don’t practice what we preach? The early church fathers (and mothers) chose poverty, shame, torture and even death over any compromise. If you read the lives of the early saints, it’s amazing how they consistently chose to make clear where they stood on the big things (Christ’s divinity and Lordship) as well as the small things (individual moral and ethical choices)—there was never any compromise no matter what it cost them personally. The argument that people need the money and so they have to live in unbiblical relationships goes totally against the self-sacrificing attitude of the great saints. I think that unless we recapture that attitude, the church will continue to diminish. Why would the world care about our mesage when our attitudes and lifestyles aren’t distinct and separate from the world (i.e., “holy”) in any way?
LikeLike
MWPeak, the problem with that is the biblical commands for marriage in 1 Cor 7 and Hebrews 13:4. If we do away with marriage we do away with a biblical mandate. Eek! 🙂
LikeLike
I’m Catholic and situations like this are not uncommon, especially in Latino parishes. If both adults are Catholic, they would be welcome to join the parish, although, they wouldn’t be considered married. If they are not Catholic, they would be invited to join the RCIA class and they would be able to join the Church officially when the situation was resolved. Until the situation is resolved, they would not be able to participate in the sacraments, serve on the altar, or teach. They would be welcome to worship with us and be involved in planning social events and such. The children would be welcome to participate in the sacramental life of the Church. Catholics believe that marriage has both sacramental and civil effects, so a sacramental marriage without a civil marriage is reserved for very serious cases, such as when one of the spouses is on their deathbed.
LikeLike
SteveO, that’s a good point. The counterpoint is asking whether their commitment to God can be questioned based on their reasoning for not marrying. You can’t serve God and money, and in this case we would need more discussion to make sure that they are serving Him. We are also told to police open sin in our midst as a congregation.
For the arguments (not from SteveO) that there is no biblical ceremony commemorating a marriage, it would seem John 2 denies that idea at least somewhat. The wedding celebration of Christ’s first miracle is a public, community recognition of a wedding. It is certainly true that the state does not need to be involved, but then the question arises again of why they would not want it to? I am really concerned that fraud is being perpetrated or that money is driving life instead of commitment to God and His ways. And I say that without trying to wag a finger or be holier-than-thou, but as a shepherd who seeks to lead people to know Christ, grow in Him, and serve Him.
LikeLike
The question on my mind is how do we differentiate marriage from just living together?
Say a couple meets, fall in love, move in together, have sex and then a few years later go their separate ways. What is difference between marriage and divorce and having a relationship and parting ways? Again, is it time, consent, legal boundaries, the church’s perspective? Why not just let people live as they will without some unclear expectation placed on them?
Maybe we would have more peaceful lives if we didn’t have marriage and divorce.
I say you would simply receive them and minister to them. It is better to serve than to sever.
LikeLike
e) Give up on viewing the church as a club you can somehow join.
LikeLike
Encourage them to marry and forfeit the child support. The new husband is now her provider. They are the ones putting money ahead of morality and they need to repent of that mindset, which is the same philosophy behind the “abortion for convenience” argument. Think about it. The money is what is driving these people into sin. The love of money is indeed the root of all kinds of evil. If money will force them to sin at the beginning of their marriage, will it not force them to sin later on? In the wedding ceremony, this is the “for poorer” part of a vow she is apparently unwilling to make. How can you be sure they will ever really get married? The church should DEFINITELY NOT obligate themselves to pay the difference between this woman’s first husband’s standard of living and the standard of living provided by her current premarital affair partner. What a horrible precedent to set for all the other couples living together outside of marriage.
LikeLike
I am coming at this with some experience. My present wife and I lived together for over a year while we waited for my divorce to work its way through the byzantine family law courts. My ex-wife had left me but the combination of her drug use, mental heath issues and the likely termination of her spousal support once we had a final settlement meant that my divorce was not final until nearly 4 years after my first wife had left me. In the end we actually had a big “unofficial†church wedding followed small “official†wedding once all the papers were actually signed. I should probably add that my new wife was visibly pregnant at our “unofficial†wedding and that my new son was present at the alter during the “official†one.
I am an Anglican so their was never any ecclesiastical issues about us participating fully in the life of our Chuch before the “real†wedding but I come from a very evangelical family (my Dad is a PCA ruling elder) and my irregular living situation caused a great deal of tension in the family. My folks never let me and my partner share a bedroom under their roof (even when she was 6 months pregnant) but both my sisters (both evangelical Baptists) welcomed me and my new family (I have two step children) into their homes without reservations.
I don’t think I would have minded if I had been told that I could not become a member of our church until our marriage was “official†but it is a issue that has to be handled delicately. It is very important for sinners to feel welcome in Chuch and we certainly don’t want to stigmatize the children. If I were the pastor of the couple in question I would encourage them to get married right away and refer them to a good lawyer to help them with the child suport issues. my understanding of the law is that child support is unrelated to marital status (my suspicion is that the actual issue is spousal support and that is often linked to marital status but since we are talking about a common law situation here they may actual be committing fraud by not notifying the women’s ex or her current living situation) either way they need good legal as well as spiritual advice.
God Bless
Steve in Toronto
LikeLike
Got to be e)
All of the others are saying you have to be ‘something’ before you are welcome as part of this church and if you don’t fit within our defined ‘somethings’ you can’t come in.
Grace says we are accepted as we are and then work to change in becoming more Christ-like. It doesn’t dispense with the need for ‘shepherding’ and guiding the couple towards a better expression of their relationship within the church community, but it does mean that they don’t need to attain some ‘standard’ before they are brought into the church family.
I realise the issue here is membership rather than simply one of attendance, but membership should be based on their commitment to God. It might be a different scenario should they wish to take up any sort of leadership position, but that’s not even at stake here.
LikeLike
This question/discussion is good, messy, but good.
Marriage should never be viewed by the people of God as simply a state sanctioned “piece of paper”.
Marriage is meant to take place in the community of believers. This is why the phrase “before God and these witnesses” is used. In many ways it is private, but in many aspects it is a very public thing (at least as far as the church goes)
In the community of faith there should be accountability and interdependence, therefore when a believing couple gets married and is a part of a church it isn’t just about those two and their wants and needs. They are a part of the community, the body.
this needs to be taken into consideration when discussing a matter such as this as well.
IMHO
LikeLike
To answer a couple of factuals….
1. Both are Christians for many years.
2. Child support has been consistent and there’s been no fight over it.
LikeLike
There is a theological aspect of marriage that I would like to bring up. The purpose of Christian marriage is a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the Church. In Eph. 5:32, Paul writes that marriage of man and women reflects that of Christ and the Church. In Eph 5, Paul compares to the role of the husband as head of the wife even as Christ is head of the Church.
How does this understanding of Christian marriage affect your answer to Michael’s question? Christian marriage is more than just a relationship between two people, it impacts the Church as well. I’m not sure what the appropriate answer is, but we must base on answer on Holy Scripture regardless of the legal, economic and social consequences are.
LikeLike
i guess another question i would wrestle with is “what is marriage?” are we married when the state says that we are married. i mean can a minister perform a marriage ceremony and pronounce the couple married, but not have that legal status with the state? i mean if the United States collapsed today would all of our marriages no longer be valid, because the sanctioning body no longer exists? i think that the answer would be no, therefore can the church pronounce someone married even if it is not recognized by the state? did the people in Jesus’ day have to go to Pilate for him to pronounce them married? i realize that this opens a whole can of worms…but there is a difference between a Christian marriage and a secular marriage…right?? a Christian marriage can be recognized by the Church and the state, but a state marriage does not have to be recognized by the Church..correct?
mason
LikeLike
I don’t think the church should shut them out just because they don’t have the official marriage papers. In God’s eyes, they are married. Treat them as married but membership should come with counseling and relationship-building. Throughout serious, continual counseling sessions and prayer, this couple will (hopefully) grow in their faith in God and relationships to each other. Who knows? they may be the most faithful, God-centered couple in the church!
As far as the child support issue goes, I would look at the history of the child support. Has it been consistent over the years? Has the woman had to fight to get it from the ex? In my experiences with friends and family collecting child support, it isn’t given easily. They have had to fight and fight to even get a dime of it. Is waiting for the child support even worth waiting one more year of living in sin?
LikeLike
I wonder if the father would feel exploited if he knew.
LikeLike
Good question, and one that the early church struggled with too, if 1 Timothy 5 is any indication.
LikeLike
I think the danger lies in what the children think as they grow older. They already have been abandoned (in one way or another) by their biological father. Their mother and “stepfather” are not marrying yet out of financial convenience. So when the children grow up and date, why won’t they say to themselves: “Mom and Dad lived and slept together before marriage. Why shouldn’t I?” That is what I would discuss with the couple.
LikeLike
The early church probably had to deal with even more confusing issues over marriage than we do today, especially as the church spread out into predominately gentile areas. You have to keep in mind that the Roman Empire had a huge slave population, and, unless I’m mistaken, state-recognized marriage was not available to those with slave status. They could pair up as their masters allowed — or as they could get away with behind their masters’ backs. So, I would imagine that the early church found itself recognizing a lot of marriages that weren’t recognized by the state. And, of course, you had many slaves, both male and female, being used as sex toys, and in cases of female slaves, being impregnated by their masters. I wonder how the church dealt with that in cases when the slave was a Christian and the master was not. In First Corinthians Chapter 7, Paul addresses some of these issues, and he seems to follow a policy that, regardless of the nature of the relationship (be it husbands and wives or slaves and masters), these relationships should be regarded as secondary and subject to a person’s relationship with Christ and the church. In verse 24, Paul tells people to be content in the condition in which they come to Christ — which seems to suggest a church policy of accepting people in the condition in which they come.
With all that said, I think churches should accept unmarried couples (such as the one this post describes) simply as people needing Christ, His transforming work in their lives, and the kind of discipleship and instruction that the church is there to provide. I don’t think any particular label or classification of their relationship necessarily has to be established. From my own experience in the church — and I mean a church that maintains sound and frequent teaching on marriage and relationships — such couples will either eventually follow the conviction to get married in the church or one or both of them will leave. I believe that it’s part of the church’s mission in this world to help bring broken or screwed up relationships into the healing and transforming hands of Jesus. And such healing and transformation usually takes some time — which requires some patience and a willingness to reserve judgement on the part of the church.
LikeLike
[not the same as the earlier one[
Most of what I thought about writing was quickly covered by Lainie before I had time to put my thoughts together. Now I mostly have to say “ditto” to everything she said with a little additional observation that this common scenario must vary a bit from region to region.
Living in the Northwest I have never heard of any simple remarriage that compromises any obligation to financially support a child from an earlier marriage. I’ve heard of deadbeat dads and moms alike having wages or salaries garnished, and even heard of one case where a man who contested paternity for a child he refused to financially support ended up in prison for some reason.
LikeLike
(First of all, I am basing my answer below on the assumption that this couple wishes to join a fairly conservative church that discourages sexual activity outside of marriage.)
As for the rest, I have no idea as to whether this scenario is a “true story” and like most case-studies it leaves out a lot of crucial information. So first of all, I’d like to get some answers to these questions:
1. How long have both partners been Christians?
2 Were they Christians at the time they started dating? Cohabitating?
3. What is it about the child support agreement that makes it terminate upon the female partner’s remarriage? Is this a social security matter or an issue of court-ordered child support?
4.If this is truly a child support matter, have they contacted a lawyer about their situation in hopes of re-negotiating child support?
5.Are they truly dependent on the child support money? Given that the child support money is to end soon, why is it that they cannot afford to marry now, but can afford to marry next year? What does their household budget look like?
6. Why, given their situation, did they decide to cohabitate instead of simply engaging in an extended courtship? Why didn’t either partner obtain a higher paying job or seek training so as to get a higher paid job that could make up for the child support shortfall?
7. What is their relationship with the female partner’s previous spouse/partner? Does the male partner have a former spouse? Children?
I am not entirely comfortable with the idea that cohabitation can be a de facto marriage (most states no longer recognize common law marriage). I understand the sentiment behind the recognition of such arrangements, but given their lack of legal and social identity, I don’t recommend them.
At the same time, I’d probably not advise that the couple physically separate, as I believe that this would be disruptive to both their relationship and the children. If I felt that the couple had exercised poor judgment in deciding to cohabitate, I would work with them to prepare for their marriage, and revisit the issue of membership after they married. If there had been extenuating circumstances that prompted the decision to cohabitate (one of the partners or the child had a disability, extreme poverty, etc) I might be prepared to receive them as members and then hold them accountable to their plans to marry when the child support ended.
LikeLike
Exactly. I’ll bet there were people who had the same concern in the first century, and the church looked after its members anyway.
LikeLike
None of the present-day customs for Western, American marriage are biblical. In ancient Israel, a man would wish to marry, would go to a woman’s father and pay a dowry, collect his bride, take her home, and they would be considered married. No ceremony, no license, no rings, no ritual… except for one involving a bloody cloth that I won’t go into here.
Point being, does God see committed cohabitation as marriage? From the bible’s depiction, yes He does.
There’s no indication that the Samaritan in John 4.16 was living with the one “who is not your man,” as Jesus put it. Why wouldn’t he be her man? Because they weren’t committed; because they weren’t cohabiting; it may even have been adulterous. John really doesn’t say one way or the other. Yet knowing what we do about how marriages were arranged in first-century Palestine, it’s not wrong to assume that they didn’t lacked the two things necessary to create marriage back then: (1) Commitment. (2) Cohabitation.
Now, for this hypothetical couple.
If the child support is state-sponsored support based on parental (and step-parental) income, and they’re not legally married so the mother keeps getting it… well, that’s fraud, and probably a felony. I can’t endorse that. Giving them a religious ceremony without filing the legal paperwork would probably constitute abetting a felony. Wanna lose your tax-exempt status, or get your church shut down?
There have gotta be other resources available to support the kids and their parents. The church should know some; it should be contributing towards them already.
Otherwise, they’re married, I believe, in God’s eyes. For the sake of weaker Christians, and just because it’s good to formalize their commitment to one another, they should have a ceremony, but I wouldn’t demand it of them. I would only demand that they stop the fraud, and offer alternate help.
LikeLike
I like the heart of Laura’s idea with the logic of John C.’s points. In the context of welcoming relationship, in a counseling setting…explore the real ‘whys’ starting with ‘why do you want to be members?’
Most churches I have attended have very little restriction from being involved as a regular attender who is not an official member, except some teaching/deaconing type positions. They should be welcome to attend and participate but not be in a position of leadership, until they decide to either marry legally, separate until they can marry legally, etc.
The more I think about it, the more I feel like it is a really bad excuse. We all have situations in our lives that if we chose the immoral or sinful option it would save us money. Fraud is probably an accurate word.
LikeLike
Marriage is historically neither a state action nor a church action, but rather a contractual relationship between families. God never commanded marriage in the eyes of the state, and neither Jesus nor his disciples performed marriages. It seems, therefore, that common law marriage is closer to the practice found in scripture than that promoted vehemently by the “traditional marriage” advocates. Paul only mandated monogamy for leadership, not everyone.
If they consider themselves married, then the church should consider them married. If they couldn’t legally (or legalistically) marry because of extenuating circumstances or denominational rules that punish them for past sins that God has already forgiven, build a bridge and get over it.
The mission of the Church is to reconcile the world to God, and this couple and their children are not going to be reconciled to God by the elders of the church persecuting them for having sex without a license.
I’m more concerned with the statement that the woman would lose child support if she remarried. What kind of justice system allows a father to no longer have to support his kids simply because their mother is married to someone else now? In my experience, nothing short of adoption by the stepfather will relieve the father of his responsibility for child support. If it’s not child support, but government assistance, then the couple is defrauding the state and should be subject to church discipline. If it is in fact child support, then the church needs to advocate for a change in the law to fix the injustice.
LikeLike
If it walks like a duck….
LikeLike
Is marriage either a church sanctioned ceremony or a civil, government sanctioned ceremony?
I think it is neither. I think it is vows taken between two people to live as husband and wife. The ceremonies are just to share those vows with others, but their not necessary.
LikeLike
I might argue that this isn’t necessarily a case of exploitation. They may very well need the support of the person who created the child with them and the laws, unfortunately, don’t allow these situations to be played out fairly in every circumstance. I think it is safer to be generous on this one.
LikeLike
Is it possible to marry them in the church without marrying them within the state? If no marriage licence is filed, are they “officially” married?
LikeLike
How do “we” in the church categorize sin anymore? Personally, I have more trouble with why they’re not marrying than that they aren’t married, tho I’m not sure on what grounds. OTOH, if the church could look at my own heart and motives for my outward behaviors and sometimes private thoughts or behaviors, would I be welcomed into the church? Should I be? I’ve seen how selective church leadership can be in deciding what they will come out against and what they appear to turn a blind eye to and I’m not sure it’s the law of love and the Word that is guiding them. There were complicated issues faced in the NT churches and there are today.
Bottomline, gather the elders of the church together, spend time in prayer and waiting before the Word and the Spirit, perhaps, bring them in to this wrestling place. He will guide you in this decision as he is the head and you are the closer family members of this local body of Christ. Michael, I know this are gutwrenching issues as there are real people involved.
Is there a difference between church/denominal criteria for membership vs. what we glean from what made people a part of a local body in the NT?
LikeLike
Have either of them been previously married? I’d think that’s a pretty important thing to know to be able to answer any of your questions.
LikeLike
But in that story, Jesus made a distinction between the woman’s five previous husbands, and the man with whom she was now living, but was not married to. That seems to make a fairly good case against common law marriage.
I especially like Laura’s answer (scroll down).
LikeLike
e) blog about it and take an opinion poll, then decide from there.
LikeLike
I was about to say the same as Dan. The one I see more often is the elderly couple for whom getting legally married would have HUGE financial impact.
LikeLike
Ditto. What did Jesus say to the woman at the well about how many husbands she had had? In my book they are married. Being in this church will hopefully guide them in commitment to one another in a more solid marriage.
LikeLike
amen
LikeLike
Praise God and pass the plate?
LikeLike
For what it’s worth…I know a pastor PCUSA (he’s conservative for PCUSA) who performs a wedding ceremony “in the eyes of God” although not necessarily in the eyes of the state. This allows the widow (in this situation) to continue to receive her (justly earned) benefits and the church to receive the couple as “fully” married.
LikeLike
And what, pray tell, will you do when the new policy attracts a glut of new members who are widows in need of church support?
LikeLike
Sign them up, and treat them as whatever they say they are (single, married, engaged).
LikeLike
Mea culpa: I’m an SBC pastor in the Southwest. (but often BINO: Baptist In Name Only…though often toward Bible church practice rather than like iMonk toward more liturgical denominational practice)
I told our elders on Wednesday night that the issue of marriage (specifically in my case, who I can and cannot marry with a clear conscience) has caused more people to be more upset at me than any other issue in the church.
The part of this story that really frustrates me is their reasoning. They are putting off marriage because of the financial ramifications? That, to me, sounds like an excuse. My old tennis coach used to define an excuse as the skin of reason stuffed with a lie. I can make logical arguments about the tax benefits of them being married and all that stuff, the estate planning issues and whatnot, custody of the kids and all that jazz. However, it seems that they are accepting the benefits of marriage (i.e. financial stability, partner support, parenting backup, sexual access, etc.) without being willing to accept the price (decreased patrimony). They need to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” I would strongly encourage them to make their marriage official and accept what that brings, and would not be willing to welcome them as members if they were unwilling to accept our elder’s counsel on this important an issue. That is what shepherds are for.
I had a situation not too dissimilar last year, though in this case the wrinkle was that she was a Christian and he was not. It was about 6 months of mentorship, meeting, welcoming and discipleship before he made a profession of faith in Christ. Once he made that profession we opened the discussion of their marital situation (and her son and their mutual two kids). They were married a month later and were welcomed as members the following Sunday.
LikeLike
I LOVE this answer. And I can hear the chorus of protests that would ensue from the congregation. A whole lot about “encouraging sinful behavior” and “setting a bad example.” As if any of us ever needed any encouragement to be sinful. This is an answer full of grace and gospel and so will drive the religious crowd absolutely batty.
It would take real guts for a pastor to pull this off, and he would have to have earned a great deal of trust from his congregation and leadership. I love it.
LikeLike
amen laura!
LikeLike
Until modern times, weddings were rare outside the wealthy, and common law marriage was the norm. We’re returning to that norm rapidly these days, so this will be more and more common, financial circumstances from this particular example aside.
Marriage is as marriage does. A wedding is just a ritual to help everybody get used to the idea that a marriage is starting or is already present. Let them in, and everybody say hurrah for their wedding next year.
LikeLike
wow, interesting situation.
first the special note: i think, from what knowledge i have of the teaching of jesus, i hear him
saying: ” trust me enough to provide for your needs. i love you friends won’t you put your whole trust in me? won’t i treat you better than the sparrows and lillies? repent and turn from your sin, be married and be joyful in that union. i’ll even come and celebrate with you.”
so i guess that is my answer.
LikeLike
e) Offer for the Church to marry them (after appropriate counseling) and for the Church to make up the difference in lost Child Support (which is the Church’s responsibility in the first place).
~I know of a Widow with five children. She homeschooled. Her oldest Son was at the Air Force Academy. When finances became a concern, her Church supported her in every way possible: financially and tangibly (home repair, for example) so she could stay home with her school-age Children and continue to educate them as they had always been educated. Her CHurch tried to keep life for them as they had known it when Dad had been alive. This helped them, greatly, transition to their “new normal”.
And, besides, isn’t it the Church’s responsibility to care for the Widow and the Orphan until God brings a Redeemer-Kinsman? Which I’ve seen God do…my friend, a Widower and Pastor. They’ve been married about 5 years now. 🙂
Maybe we need to trust God and not Man with our temporal needs… Jesus often ministered in this way: heal the immediate problem first to heal the heart and soul.
LikeLike
How people answer this is based on how they perceive marriage – is it a church sanctioned ceremony or a civil, government sanctioned ceremony?
As you state in the special note, are people married because they live as a married couple? And how people answer also will apply to divorced/separated people. Do you turn them away and tell them to repent. Most churches will not turn anyone away or treat them any differently, especially if they have kids.
I think, of your options, I would receive them as engaged. Depending on how strongly the church (small “c”) feels about such things, they are obviously living together and having sex. Maybe counsel them. Having them stay together just so that they can collect child support is almost as abhorrent to me as the relationship. I wish this was considered fraud in America.
LikeLike
They aren’t married because, basically, of not wanting to lose substantial child support.
If I had the tact to do it properly I’d ask them why they view marriage as a system to be exploited for their convenience.
LikeLike
Assume a), and get to know them. Revise as necessary.
LikeLike