Given that this post is categorized as a "random musing," I shall and should endeavor to limit it to one or two paragraphs. After talking to Rachel it has become clear to me that there is a problem with some of what I was saying. In order to be succinct, I'll just relay my newer thoughts on the matter. Christians should encourage people to marry because as much as I and others who comment here and blog elsewhere might believe otherwise, marriage is an institution that predates religion and so it is built into the human condition. We cannot argue that non-religious marriage is a historical fiction because marriage has come in some many forms, from so many cultures ranging from barely religious by our standards, to fanatically religious. The marriage meme is that old and adaptive, which is why God makes no claim to say that the marriages of non-Jews and non-Christians are any less valid than those of Jews and Christians. Even if we took away the secular state's say in the matter, it would be legitimate for two secular-minded people to marry anyway with some sort of respected person overseeing the wedding, even if it's just the parents.
There is also the pesky fact that we know what will happen if we encourage them to not get married. They'll behave like they were married if you know what I mean. The catch is, we should instead make it clear to them that marriage is something that God holds dear and won't allow to be dissolved lightly, regardless of what the state says. We should encourage them to marry, but make that go hand-in-hand with the knowledge of what the Gospel says about divorce. They have a choice. They can get married now, and risk divorce and all that the Torah and Gospel say comes with that. They can choose to continue to live in sin now, and repent later. In the latter, there is the distinct possibility that if they do that, they will go to Hell. However, it is their choice, and it is one that they must decide upon based on what they value. The problem is, in some cases, exacerbated by modern laws, the latter will seem like the rational choice. That is something that we need to think about and that has deep ramifications for our future.
Related Entries:
We shouldn't be surprised that the world positions itself against the institution of marriage since it glorifies God. Marriage may predate "religion" but it does not predate God's will for men and women.
With careful parsing, I find nothing above to disagree with, MikeT. I do suspect you know, however, that there are definitely 'marriages' referenced in the Bible which God neither blessed, nor even respected (Ezra, if memory serves, where he ordered His people out of them, as well as other examples; Kosbi the most obvious.)
My own original marriage predates our recognition of Him as Master, but managed to survive in spite of that. I am still thankful, and give the credit to Him, however, without hesitation.
The bottom line I would add is that I still don't find as much value in secular, government-blessed marriage, though, as you imply. At best it's a misleading subtitute, and lends support to the 'prince of this world' rather than the Real One. At worst, there's no real change of destination without a change of direction first anyway.
I understand your point but disagree.
You are arguing that modern marriage is equivelent with traditional marriage. It is not.
Intervention by feminist advocates, family law practice, governments, tax codes, homosexuals and even a generally weakening church have created differences in the substance of marriage to the point where recommending it is of little value to the non-believer, absent of other cultural requirements.
I will post further at my blog.
Done.
http://rociburden.blogspot.com/2007/05/roots-of-marriage.html
I am not arguing that they are the same. I would never do that. What I am arguing is the fact that it is a mockery of what marriage should be, doesn't negate the fact that it needs to be taken seriously and done right anyway.
Sorry, Mike, but I'm on the same page with Mark Call and Roci on this one. I would submit that modern civil marriage is not really marriage at all in any meaningful sense of the term. For men, it is more like joining the military; it gives a man a lot of new responsibilities, but takes away some of his rights. And the other party can change its mind about any part of the relationship at any time.
If a civil marriage carried the legal force of a contract, then my opinion would be entirely different. Men and women, religious or otherwise, could be held legally responsible for their wedding vows.
Personally, I would encourage Christians to have a religious-only marriage and both Christians and non-Christians to avoid civil marriage entirely.
Triton,
It would only end up having a civil component to it with such people because of the fact that they would probably not understand a ceremony-only marriage. If you go back, you'll notice that I am focusing on them getting married in the abstract, which could include two secular people going to a priest and being married in ceremony only.
Ok, sorry for any misunderstanding. I was under the impression you were using the term "marriage" to mean civil marriage.
Just to be clear, the Gospels and the Torah have very different opinions about divorce. The Torah views it as unfortunate, but permitted (although with consequences).
What about Isaac and Rebekah?
Did they have some sort of ceremony to make it official?
Or was the time in the tent the ceremony? (if you know what I mean)
How does God view it?
I'm way late here, but this should at least be mentioned:
Just to be clear, the Gospels and the Torah have very different opinions about divorce...
Au contraire, thegameiam. If that appears to be the case, it is only because men have done again to the Gospels what Yeshua so criticized the Pharisees for - rewriting His Word.
Any "conflict" between Torah, and the Torah Made Flesh, is one of misunderstanding.