Is ‘No Sex Before Marriage’ a Realistic Expectation?
I was Skyping with a friend about performing marriage ceremonies for couples who were living together before they were married. “Where do we draw the line?” was the gist of our discussion. Do you:
- Marry people if they are living together before marriage?
- Ask cohabitating couples to live elsewhere before you’ll agree to the ceremony?
- Have a blanket, black-and-white policy for all couples, regardless of how well you know them personally?
At one point in the discussion, I wrote:
I would rather people have sex before marriage than be alientated from the church for the rest of their lives.
I was shocked. By my own words. But I mean them. I am not convinced that the Church has the luxury of saying, “We won’t marry you because you are living together.” (To be clear, I am confident that most, if not all, couples who live together before marriage are not, in fact, “saving themselves” for the wedding night.) If the couple can’t get married in a church, they’ll go to the courthouse or find a friend who got ordained online and get married.
That’s the reality.
I would rather marry a couple who is living together and provide some sort of Christ-centered influence than let them go off and find a non-Christian alternative.
That’s me. What do you think?
UPDATE: This post was written strictly regarding non-Christian couples. It is written under the context of marrying people who do not go to church. Christians, to be sure, need to keep it in their pants.
That's a tough one. I mean, if I wasn't a Christian and trying to get married by a Pastor, the fact of him turning me down would make a major impact on me and maybe even make me think twice about my behavior. I mean, something in me obviously desired to get married by a Pastor otherwise I'd go straight to the courts.
I say this because when I married I was living with my ex-husband, then fiance. I wish someone told me to stop living with him and sat me down and really explained to me what it meant to be equally yoked and to be holy and consecrated to God. I was being rebellious, but partly due to naivety.
Christina, I love you, but I disagree! =) Who gets married in the courts!? Seriously? The notion of how you get married in the US is in a church or at least by a pastor – whether you're Christian or not, that's the tradition. Furthermore, a limited number of people are licensed to certify marriage certificates – those are probably 90% pastors.
So, I'm sorry Christina, but your argument doesn't make sense to me – nor is it a very honest interpretation reality – i love you.
I like your second paragraph – but do you really think some random guy that you've asked to do your wedding will have the relational equity in your life to tell you a hard truth like that? I think probably not, and like Justin says, they'll be turned-off to church for a long time, sadly =(
When people come to get a civil service performed, they're basically completing a government transaction, they're not asking for your opinion.
Some excellent comments here. As with everything there is a balance in life, but I wonder for those non-christian couples who are living together, who know there is an alternative are they genuinely seeking input from the Lord or are they seeking his stamp of approval for their actions?
Now the very fact that they have come to a Church asking to be married does reveal atleast a vestige of respect which some apparently still have for Christianity. However, one must help them step beyond the calls of dead tradition into live relationship.
I can relate to this. Most often, when couples who don't go to church come to me and ask to do the ceremony, they're asking for one of two reasons:
1. To please a parent(s)
2. They have some respect for the church, God, Jesus, and Christianity and want to honor the cultural patterns of or civil religion here in America.
I always tend to err on the side of the non-believer/unchurched.
Yes yes yes. I would argue that this is true even for many couples who DO go to church. I've been a churchgoer all my life but I see no authority in the church for my marriage. We got married in a church because it's a social norm and it made our families happy. The church did not and does not validate the covenant she and I made together with God.
As a pastor, I think a key question you should be asking couples who are living together but haven't gotten married yet is *why* they haven't gotten married yet. If their answers are centered around social, cultural, or financial reasons, then pastors should consider discussing with the couple the nature of marriage and describe to them how they can be married in God's eyes without an official ceremony or a pastor's intervention.
But somehow, I doubt most pastors would be willing to do that. After all, they'd lose out on all the fees the churches get from renting out the facilities…
So how do you suggest that you can be married in God's eyes without an official ceremony? I'm not arguing with your idea but just want to know more.
I came back just to add this because I love the language of it:
"Lastly, there is matrimony, which all admit was instituted by God, though no one before the time of Gregory regarded it as a sacrament. What man in his sober senses could so regard it? God's ordinance is good and holy; so also are agriculture, architecture, shoemaking, hair-cutting legitimate ordinances of God, but they are not sacraments".
John Calvin, "Institutes of the Christian Religion", 1536
I wish I knew the answer. Like many things with God I have to sort of embrace diversity of opinion because the answer is not blatantly clear to me. I can respect the pastor that says no and I can respect the pastor that says yes. I know this though…that in the church we have our own cardinal sins that we like to uphold and gage ourselves by others with and sex before marriage is definately on that list. I suppose if we don't marry one couple because of sin we ought not to marry any couples with sins. Let's not overlook that fact that it feels good if you are a pastor who checks out the babes on the street corner and the joggers on the sidewalks to say "no" to the couple living together because then you somehow self-justify yourself before God for the babe watchin. You know it…its true…some pastors have a demi-God complex to compensate for their own struggles with sin. So why do we so adamently insist of fronting the world with perfection when battling evil is a day to day win/loose process where the winning increases with maturity. Its unfair to the unbeliever to uphold such unreal guises about our Christian lives.
Lucky for your update, I almost fell out of my chair.
Ya know, you bring up a very good point. I think that if I were a pastor and had the priviledge of doing marriage counseling with a non-Christian couple, I think there is a way to share the values of what sexual intercourse means Biblically without it necessarily sounding condemning. But, Paul says that you can't judge Gentiles on a Christian scale because they don't know Christ yet.
I would be more about sharing the Gospel and giving viewpoints on marriage from a Christian perspective, without condemning what they do. Though you could say by waiting and focusing on just knowing each other for that last month may be a good challenge that has succeeded in my own talks with non-Christians. Sorry for the meandering thought. haha.
"I was shocked. By my own words. But I mean them." I don't find this too shocking. I think a lot of non-legalistic Believers would want the same.
As far as marrying them…do it! We are to love and obey God and reach the lost, are we not? What a better way than to invite them INTO THE WALLS by which we serve a great God?
We often wonder how we are to reach people when the oppurtunity stands right in front of us.
Definitely! A nonchristian couple standing before a pastor to talk about marriage is a great opportunity. How often does a pastor get nonchristians to come into his/her office willingly and asking for guidance on a Biblical covenant? Granted, many of them may not understand the covenant or how God views it, but this is a great time to share it with them.
Don't use the opportunity as a power play. Even if you sign the marriage license and say the words during a service, it's God that unites two people in marriage. Nothing you do can help or prevent it. They don't need you to marry them. But they might need you to show them Christ…
You're doing a much better job of explaining my viewpoint than I am.
I want to use any opportunity I can to introduce people to the reality of Christ. I think it's silly to not proclaim that reality simply because a couple is living together before they are married.
Definitely! A nonchristian couple standing before a pastor to talk about marriage is a great opportunity. How often does a pastor get nonchristians to come into his/her office willingly and ask for guidance on a Biblical covenant? Granted, many of them may not understand the covenant or how God views it, but this is a great time to share it with them.
Don't use the opportunity as a power play. Even if you sign the marriage license and say the words during a service, it's God that unites two people in marriage. Nothing you do can help or prevent it. They don't need you to marry them. But they might need you to show them Christ…
After all, disciples are learners…maybe they haven't been taught yet. And maybe they would want to love God when they are exposed to the gentleness of his ways with wounds.
I think the main problem I have with it is that it's making it the Church's fault. You and I both agree that churches don't have the right to treat people like ants, but to say, as the leader of a huge ministry, that it's ok for you to do this because otherwise the Church will not be your buddy is ludicrous.
Believing in the best FOR people is not legalistic.
I learned in construction; There's a million ways to do something, there's only one way to do it fast and right." My question is this – Can you back up this statement you've made with scripture in context?
"My question is this – Can you back up this statement you've made with scripture in context?"
The better question is, can you?
"Can you back up this statement you've made with scripture in context?"
The better question is, can you?
I'm not the one who wrote the post viewed by 415+ people. Some Biblical back up shouldn't be out of the question.
After seeing your update, the idea of this post makes more sense…however, I still don't like that you make the Church the bad guy in this. Jesus healed and forgave, saying, "go and sin no more.." He did not enable them. There should be a balance, and I know a lot of these situations are handled on a case-by-case basis. That's what I recommend.
II Timothy 4:1-5 (NIV)
1 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.
Be careful on this one esp verse 3-4. This definitely lays out the duty of a Christian leader and the challenges they face, but lets be careful not to use this to support our own interpretation of how those duties should be executed, unless they are explicitly stated in scripture.
I didn't share those verses for that reason. It had nothing to do with how duties should be executed. The emphasis was on verse 3:
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."
It doesn't say children of God or unbelievers, it just says "men". I think this relates to this situation. Unbelievers come to church with their desire to get married. Is Justin going to tell them what they want to hear or what they need to hear?
I'd also say this verse relates to this:
Galatians 1:10 (NIV)
10 Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.
Suggesting that a pastor should refuse to marry someone on the basis of sin demonstrates amazing arrogance and a gross misunderstanding of the authority through which a couple enters into marriage. Marriage is not a gift from the pastor, thus it is not the pastor's gift to refuse.
If unbelievers or unrepentant sinners request a pastor to serve as an officiant, the pastor is serving a legal state-appointed role. "By the power vested in me by the state of _______". Serve this role dutifully, as you would serve the role of juror when summoned to court. While serving this role, take the opportunity to be a witness for Christ, as you do in all things. Is your goal to make a point or to reach people for Christ? Build a relationship. Demonstrate love and compassion. Teach the Word. If it's not received well, shake the dust off your sandals and call it a day.
You can't force a legal wedding to become a Godly marriage. A wedding is a worldly invention of man. A marriage is a God-given gift. Refusing to be involved in the wedding of a couple is refusing a great opportunity to demonstrate Christ to a couple that may desperately need to see Him.
I don't believe Justin is saying either one, he's asking us to reflect on our responses to this situation. The fact remains its an opportunity to share what God's best is. The church should not rubber stamp the world's action, on that I think we all can agree.
Assuming the couple are already living together, are they willing to separate even for a short time, to assist in understanding there separate reasons for wanting to get married? If kids are on the way, they probably should get married sooner rather than later, but is that church willing to step up to the plate and assist the couple to be faithful from here on out? Are there accountability systems in place to assist that in happening….?
The reality is that there is no simple answer to this situation, We need help non-christians see that there is something better out there which it is possible for them reach, but its only through a relationship with Christ will it be accomplishable or make sense. If they are willing to go the full mile then lets see what God will do, if not then maybe our gentle but firm No will be the first step in their journey toward Christ.
Dean, why quote this passage? Why not John 3:16?
?!? ……
Now you're just being facetious.
No. I'm not. I want to know why you chose to quote that passage.
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. "
That passage?
If so, then here is the answer:
I've been reading your blogs. I've watched your appearances on Mac's World, that you've posted on your blog. In my opinion, you are very vague and speak in generalities. Also, you seem to try not to offend anyone. On the last Mac's World video you posted… even in the moments that you did state what you believed, you were quick to point out that there is not a definitive answer.
I've been keeping my eyes and ears on you, and honestly… I don't trust you up to this point. I don't understand what your agenda is. Also, you REALLY seem to have a beef with me using scripture. It seems that so far, you've either ignored it, told me I should focus more on other verses (your John 3:16 comment, which seemed very unnecessary to say) or you tell me that anyone can use scripture to back their point of view.
I'm VERY frustrated with you at this point, to say the least. I value truth, I value scripture and I value pleasing God. So far, you've made me feel as though I shouldn't value those things or that I'm not valuing them the correct way.
So, my analysis of Justin Wise, so far, is – a man who is telling people what their itching ears want to hear. Is truth relative to you? It seems to be. Your message seems to be – the church sucks, Christians are wrong about most everything (except that Jesus is Lord) and that love is all we need… and forget everything else that's in the Bible, just LOVE. Well, I will agree that LOVE is the greatest commandment, but I would disagree with how you go about defining HOW to love. Love is not tolerance and love does not exsist separate from truth. God is Love and God is also truth. Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man comes to the Father but by me."
Some people may read all of this and think, "Wow, he's attacking Justin! What a jerk." Let them think what they want. I'm calling you out, Justin.
A lot of what you say is questionable, to say the least. I will admit that I don't know your heart, but you've given me a glimpse into your mind and I don't like what I see. I don't like it at all.
Justin, I'd like to request that you give me a thought out answer, with a little bit of depth, and not another "why not John 3:16" answer that provokes me.
To everyone else on here, if I'm wrong – call me on it. Please explain. I'm not trying to say, "Bring it on!", just – "Do tell."
What's your email address?
I used your contact link at the top and sent it to you. Please let me know if you don't get it.
Dean, I believe that you value Truth, Scripture, and pleasing God. I think that Justin does as well. To be honest, I sometimes have problems with justin when he doesn't stake out a position on an issue. But, as I've gotten to read this blog more, I'm not so sure that's the point. I see a lot of corrective push here. Correcting Christian arrogance when it comes to being the sole proprietors of truth and knowledge. To me, this blog is more about rethinking dogmatic positions and creating space for people to approach Jesus and the church again. I don't think that Justin has ever waivered on the main thing (Christ being the Way, the Truth, and the Life. And that Love is the greatest commandment). Sure his method of communicating and initializing that is different than you'd like, but the end goal of realizing the kingdom of God now is the same. ____
You get me, Kramme. You get BeDeviant.com. You get it.
I agree Jason. We need to have these discussions, and Justin does a great job raising the issues and let people grapple with possible answers.
The way we do weddings/marriage in America isn't how it was done in the Bible. What do we do with that? What does that question bring to this discussion?
That question is the most important piece of the puzzle and, sadly, it's the piece most readily ignored.
"Do tell"? Ok, I'll bite.
Dean, this is not a new debate. Many pastors are accused of weakening the scriptures by only preaching love. Others are accused of preaching hellfire and damnation and virtually ignoring love. I've seen and heard both. And both are leaving something out of the equation. God seems to be somewhere in the middle. Sin is a departure from God, and should be called out. And yet, God so loved the world.
I don't know Justin at all, but I'm guessing this is why he mentions John 3:16. Not out of facetiousness, but because the passages of scripture you quote focus only on the rebuke of sin. Justin counters with a scripture that speaks of the love God offers us.
The gospel demonstrates *both* our need for grace and God's gift of it. Yes, the wages of sin is death. Yet I seem to recall a "but" after that part. When you quote scripture to rebuke sin, do you always do so by leaving out the gift of grace that God offers?
The Bible is clear that both voices are necessary to complete the picture. Our need for grace is great, but God's capacity for grace is greater. I find truth in both voices. I find God in both voices. Sinners need to be called out, but we mustn't ignore the love of God in our rebuke of sin. Paul understood this when he wrote: "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" He understood that sin was at work in his life. He even rebuked himself. Yet he knew that his salvation came through Christ. That's why the passage didn't end with his question. His question had, and still has, an amazing answer: "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!"
We are called to rebuke sin. But to represent Christ to this world, we are called to show compassion. "When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd." We must be careful not to spend so much time rebuking sin that we forget to show compassion for God's people.
You're right in calling out someone for weakening the message by focusing only on love. The Bible has teeth. It can sting. If it wasn't for our sin, we would have no need for such amazing love. It's good to be reminded of this sin and rebuked when necessary. But even a rebuke should be done with the open arms of a loving God in mind.
God convicts me of my sin, then welcomes me into His very presence. Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Fair enough. For the record, when I have shared Christ with others, I shared graciously. I can't recall one time that I came at a non-believer with the hell-fire and damnation approach.
Where my frustration comes from is when I see someone, like Justin in this case, who claims the name of Christ, and then seems to water down the sin problem. As Christians, I believe that we need to remember that whole passage (John 3:16). We cannot ignore the first part, but I will also agree that we can't forget the 2nd part either. Trust me, I know both parts.
Good to hear!
If anyone is interested in how I actually do go about sharing my faith, here is an example, on my blog. Granted, it's a blog post, but this is how I share my faith online, and I think it gives you somewhat of an idea of how I share in person.
http://deanstephenson.blogspot.com/2009/04/who-am...
newlutheran, I accept your input and it was well said. I agree, God is somewhere in the middle. You may not believe it from my comments, but I really feel that I am in the middle. Like I said, I don't share Christ with the hell-fire and damnation approach. But I do believe that we are called to, as brothers and sisters in Christ, correct each other. Paul corrected Peter, IN PUBLIC, and basically said, "Why are you still teaching circumcision?!?" He called him right out on that, in front of everyone. Public correction isn't wrong in and of itself, but you have to be careful how you do it. I will admit, I need to be a little more careful with how I handle it.
Sorry, but I can't agree with you. At all. Like I said elsewhere, in the words of James MacDonald, "There's friction in truth." Marrying a couple that are engaged in cohabitation is not "Christ centered." There's no "sort of" when it comes to God's word. There is only truth in God's word.
It is better in my view to offend some with a standard that gives glory to God and exalts sexual purity and marital fidelity than it is to ignore scripture and offend the Lord by lowering expectations for those who claim to follow Christ.
*** Updating to say that I am speaking in the context of the couple in question being Christ followers. If they are not Christ followers then we're talking about a whole different thing.
Bingo. If these are Christian people, there's no question that them living together needs to be challenged. This post was strictly directed towards those who ask me to me marry them and are not Christians or even church-goers.
Ah I didn't realize it was directed toward non-Christians or non-churchgoers. The post didn't seem to spell that out.
I don't envy pastors when it comes to marriage. To be honest, you guys are on authoritative thin ice. When performing a wedding ceremony, you're serving both state and church… a rather fine line don't you think? Marrying nonchristians is a great example of this. Can a nonchristian even enter into the covenant between a man and a woman created by God in Genesis? If not, isn't it more a contract between the couple and the state government than an actual marriage? And, if that's all there is to it, why is a pastor or church even involved?
Although, it could be a great opportunity for evangelism.
I would be 100% comfortable with not being an agent of the state. In most European countries, they have two separate ceremonies: One at the courthouse and one at the church. I think we should adopt the same practices.
I agree! Brother Jay, I think you missed the point of the post – not talking about Christians.
Be careful, you're sounding like you view the pastor as the binding force in a marriage relationship. I see the pastor's role as pretty minimal in a wedding. They sign the marriage license to make the marriage official before the eyes of the law. They officiate, in most cases, a worship service as part of the ceremony. In a lot of cases there is communion, a sermon of sorts, scripture readings… components of a traditional liturgical worship service. The pastor does not join the couple in union though. Only God can do that.
I'll just be honest here. We lived together before we "got married". I won't try to justify it because I feel no need to justify it. But, for the curious, I'll explain. We've known each other since 7th grade and we began dating in high school (1996). By 1998 or so we knew we would be getting married. We *knew* it. I know a lot of people say that and use it to justify actions but in our case, it was actually true. We would have gotten married then, but we were both still in college and we knew our families would freak out. We seriously discussed eloping quietly and secretly, then having a formal, traditional ceremony at a later date to satisfy our families. We ended up not doing it and instead just moved in together secretly. We were married in 2001 and have a loving relationship.
My reason for explaining all of this is to point out that "weddings" have a lot of different meanings to a lot of different people. A wedding is in fact different and separate from marriage. I've said for years that I love our marriage but I hated our wedding. In our minds, we felt as if we were already married well before we ever walked down the aisle. No, a pastor hadn't formally joined us in union, but we had both already said our "I do"s and prayed about our relationship and our future together. God was in it and we have no doubt of that. Does a pastor joining us in marriage provide some extra validation to our relationship that wasn't there before? Does having a marriage license from the state change us in any way? The only reason we chose not to get married was because the people around us would have frowned on it. In our hearts we were already married. Perhaps our sin wasn't that we lived together before we were officially married. Perhaps our sin was giving into our families and delaying our wedding until later. I believe God joined us in union years before our wedding ceremony took place.
God is the authority in a marriage union. Talk of denying couples the right to marry seems to be taking power out of God's hands and putting them in the pastor's. A pastor has no Biblical command or right to marry people, so a pastor has no right to deny such marriage. A pastor can and should counsel couples, but "wedding" should not be a church sacrament.
I know I'm not alone here. Others far older and far wiser have questioned the church's authority to marry. I've done some reading into this. Consider these:
"No one indeed can deny that marriage is an external worldly thing, like clothes and food, house and home, subject to worldly authority, as shown by so many imperial laws governing it."
"Not only is the sacramental character of matrimony without foundation in Scripture; but the very traditions, which claim such sacredness for it, are a mere jest"
"Marriage may therefore be a figure of Christ and the Church; it is, however, no Divinely instituted sacrament, but the invention of men in the Church, arising from ignorance of the subject."
All are quotes from Martin Luther, circa 1530.
The church should honor marriage as a God-given and sacred relationship between a man and a woman. But the church has no authority over such a relationship. That authority should lie squarely on God, and God alone.
That's my very point! I don't want to be the final authority in the life of a couple. Which is why I wrote this post:
http://www.bedeviant.com/2008/10/28/i-think-i-sho...
That's why I feel okay marrying couples who really have no relationship with Jesus or are choosing to live together before marriage (a symptom of a larger "problem"? If that's the right word). I want to provide some sort of Christ-centered influence for this couple. That way, if somewhere down the road their marriage is on the rocks, they might think back to their wedding day and remember something we talked about…
Does that make sense? (And where did you snag those Luther quotes?)
Yes I agree. In my opinion, you're really only serving the state when it comes to marriage. By officiating a wedding, you're not providing the Godly authority, you're validating the legal contract. But because it's YOU and not a Justice of the Peace or whatever, you have a great opportunity to represent Christ to people who may not know Him otherwise. You may not have Godly authority to marry the couple sitting before you, but you can certainly evangelize, counsel, and pray!
Some of the quotes can be found here: http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/articles/700/719...
For what it's worth newlutheran, I am very much in agreement with you about marriage before ceremonies. My husband and I lived together our last semester of college. We had another roommate and we had our own rooms. It was an economical decision more than anything – all three of us had been paying more to have "single" dorm rooms than we did on our rent that semester and we still got our own rooms (and a garage!).
My husband and I were engaged by then, but we too were spiritually married already, in that we had made a commitment to each other. I won't say there was no hanky-panky but we went to the altar virgins and I still am glad we made that choice.
I have to say though, that we were harshly judged by a campus minister. She even gave us the whole "living in sin" speech. To which I said…how? By sharing a grocery bill and the rent?
I know you're talking co-habitation in the sense of "playing" house…doing all the married stuff except having the license. But it still rubs me the wrong way that the assumption was that we were doing the deed because we lived under the same roof. Truth be told, we had equal opportunity in the dorm when we lived under the same roof three "houses" apart.
As for what you're asking…to be the better question is why do people who don't plan to continue their faith get married in church? Is this something they do to appease grandma? What a way to start your marriage. If church isn't for you, then don't pretend it is. Simple.
Absolutely. My wife and I were pooling income and sharing expenses in college already. We'd already made a commitment to each other so it seemed logical. When we moved in together it was more along the lines of "well you're over here all the time anyway, why pay for two apartments?" I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned being "spiritually married." My response to this would be, "is there any other type of marriage?" As far as I can tell, the Bible would define you as married as soon as you both consented to such a relationship. The fact that you went to the altar as virgins is commendable, but my interpretation of scripture convinces me that you were married before you ever went to the altar.
The wedding day serves as a ceremonial public announcement of something that already happened in your relationship.
I completely understand the judgment you encountered by your campus minister. We encountered the same sort of thing. Beyond the gross assumption that people make when they equate cohabitation with sex, there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding in the area of when marriage actually begins. Pastors and ministers should ask themselves who authorizes a marriage. What defines a marriage, Biblically. Does a "wedding" have to take place for a marriage to exist? Even the title of this blog post could be called into question. Are we talking about sex before marriage, or sex before a wedding?
I hate to keep harping on poor old Martin Luther, but considering he sort of started this whole reformation thing, I think it's important to look back to history to see what the intent of some of these theologians actually was. Consider this:
“Similarly, if he would sleep with a maiden who does not yet belong to him nor is engaged to him, it is doubtful whether it would be sufficient that he by himself alone would call it a marriage or consider it to be such. But I know very well that, if she consents to it and so belongs to him, after this, cohabiting with her is a marriage, etc.”
Once again, this is Luther, around 1530. I, for one, am amazed by this. I can't help but think that he spent far more time studying the scriptures than I have, and this was his conclusion with regards to cohabitation. Correct me if I'm wrong here but it seems like he's saying that two people can sleep together and, if they both consent to a commitment afterward, cohabitation actually *becomes* marriage.
It's disheartening that pastors and the church in general have become so arrogant and smug that they manage to point out sin even where it may not exist at all. Cohabitation may be risky. It may lead to sin. It may even actually *be* sin if sex occurs without a consenting commitment to each other. But pastors should seriously look to the scriptures before propagating myths of sin to people who come to them seeking counsel.
Don't jump on the bandwagon when it comes to your understanding of marriage. Read the scriptures. Pray for discernment. Listen to the Holy Spirit. It was good enough for Luther. Perhaps modern pastors and theologians should try it more often.
Absolutely. My wife and I were pooling income and sharing expenses in college already. We'd already made a commitment to each other so it seemed logical. When we moved in together it was more along the lines of "well you're over here all the time anyway, why pay for two apartments?" I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned being "spiritually married." My response to this would be, "is there any other type of marriage?" As far as I can tell, the Bible would define you as married as soon as you both consented to such a relationship. The fact that you went to the altar as virgins is commendable, but my interpretation of scripture convinces me that you were married before you ever went to the altar.
The wedding day serves as a ceremonial public announcement of something that already happened in your relationship.
I completely understand the judgment you encountered by your campus minister. We encountered the same sort of thing. Beyond the gross assumption that people make when they equate cohabitation with sex, there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding in the area of when marriage actually begins. Pastors and ministers should ask themselves who authorizes a marriage. What defines a marriage, Biblically? Does a "wedding" have to take place for a marriage to exist? Even the title of this blog post could be called into question. Are we talking about sex before marriage, or sex before a wedding?
I hate to keep harping on poor old Martin Luther, but considering he sort of started this whole reformation thing, I think it's important to look back to history to see what the intent of some of these theologians actually was. Consider this:
“Similarly, if he would sleep with a maiden who does not yet belong to him nor is engaged to him, it is doubtful whether it would be sufficient that he by himself alone would call it a marriage or consider it to be such. But I know very well that, if she consents to it and so belongs to him, after this, cohabiting with her is a marriage, etc.”
Once again, this is Luther, around 1530. I, for one, am amazed by this. I can't help but think that he spent far more time studying the scriptures than I have, and this was his conclusion with regards to cohabitation. Correct me if I'm wrong here but it seems like he's saying that two people can sleep together and, if they both consent to a commitment afterward, cohabitation actually *becomes* marriage.
It's disheartening that pastors and the church in general have become so arrogant and smug that they manage to point out sin even where it may not exist at all. Cohabitation may be risky. It may lead to sin. It may even actually *be* sin if sex occurs without a consenting commitment to each other. But pastors should seriously look to the scriptures before propagating myths of sin to people who come to them seeking counsel.
Don't jump on the bandwagon when it comes to your understanding of marriage. Read the scriptures. Pray for discernment. Listen to the Holy Spirit. It was good enough for Luther. Perhaps modern pastors and theologians should try it more often.
SUSAN: this is very dangerous thinking.
first, being spiritually married is not a real term. the only way to be married is to be married – anything short of that is not married, period. and as someone who was hurt twice by guys who i thought i was all but married to, i definitely know the reprocussions of this thinking.
second, if you hadn't lived together, perhaps the "hanky panky" wouldn't have happened?
third, to twist scripture into a self-serving interpretation is also dangerous and damaging should you pass along these false views to immature christians or non-belivers. there is not a way to be married before the alter. to believe so is just a way to justify premarital sex.
fourth – what fun is it to get married and come back to the EXACT SAME LIFE you had? half the excitement of getting married is moving in together!
fifth – should we ignore all God's commands that are not convenient? it may be conveneient to live together for monetary reasons, etc., but lets call a spade a spade….bending God's command is not ok.
watchout: I sense the pain and hurt you've been through as I read your comments on this post. I'm truly sorry that you've been through such trials in your relationships.
You make a couple of assumptions here that disturb me. You talk of twisting the scripture into a self-serving interpretation and then in the same breath you say you can't be married before the altar. This, in and of itself, is a twisting of scripture into a self-serving interpretation. Society has developed an affinity for nice church weddings, and many have twisted scripture to make people believe that this is how God defines a wedding. I beg of you to seek out the truth from scriptures yourself. I see no requirement of a church or a pastor when it comes to the God-given gift of marriage between a man and a woman.
You talk of cohabitation as "bending God's command". I'm not sure what command you're referring to. If you're claiming that there's a command that a man and woman to be married by a pastor in a church building, and that they shouldn't live together before this event takes place, then I see this, too, as a twist of scripture to meet an agenda.
The fact that you had to go to such lengths to explain yourself, and to hide your living together, proves you konw it wasn't the right thing to do. Every couple that lives together has a story like yours, so your circumstance is not different or special. It is a choice you made, period.
Consider this: what if your actions cause another to stumble? what if your living together before marriage (and implied sex before marriage because let's get real, even if it is not happening people are assuming it is) causes another to fall away from God's command? He or she may think it is ok to have premarital sex. Or that Christians are hypocritical. Or a million other conclusions.
Instead of quoting Luther, let's quote the bible, which does, in fact, tell us NOT to do things that cause others to stumble or fall away from God. So even if you are "sure" you are marrying someone, that to me is not reason enough to live with them. (By the way, i "knew" i was going to marry two other men before my husband. I'm glad your situation worked out, but until the "i dos" are said, nothing is certain.
The fact that we went to such lengths only proves that we knew our parents wouldn't see it as the right thing to do. Our friends all knew. We weren't hiding from our parents out of shame, we were hiding because we didn't feel like fighting our parents on the issue. It's the same reason I now don't mention alcohol around my mom. It's not because I feel shame over having an occasional beer. It's because I don't feel that arguing with her over it has any value.
The biblical stumbling block concept is a tricky one to me. Even things that aren't sin, if misinterpreted, can potentially cause someone else to sin. Humor me and let me use alcohol as an example again. I had a Christian roommate in college who decided that he was never drinking even a single beer again and that we should all swear it off as well. His reasoning? He had another Christian friend who overindulged and got drunk often who claimed "other Christians drink so why shouldn't I?" The friend confused our occasional consumption of alcohol (not a sin) with drunkenness (clearly a sin).
My wife and I said our "I dos" years before a pastor ever "married" us. The pastor's actions had nothing to do with our marriage. If anyone argues that point, I would say that they misunderstand the Biblical gift of marriage and are putting far too much authority in the hands of the church.
the sad truth is, though, that most people are not as committed as you and your wife are. that's why divorce is so outrageously high. so while this may have worked for you guys, it's probably not a great idea to spread around….we have enough trouble keeping MARRIED couples together, let alone "spiritually married" ones, get what i mean?
you are right, drinking is not a bad thing in and of itself. but if you are drinking with a friend who doesnt understand the difference between drinking and drunkenness, or can't seem to control him/her self, then i would say it is sinful to continue supporting, participating in, or allowing that friend to drink in your presence.
II Corinthians 2:15-16 (NLT)
15 Our lives are a Christ-like fragrance rising up to God. But this fragrance is perceived differently by those who are being saved and by those who are perishing. 16 To those who are perishing, we are a dreadful smell of death and doom. But to those who are being saved, we are a life-giving perfume.
I Corinthians 1:18 (NLT)
18 The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God.
i'm just really leery of the whole we'll-put-off-telling-you-you're-a-sinner-until-we've-already-got-you-in evangelical thing. sorry justin, but i think it's horribly patronizing. either you should be consistent in upholding your current convictions regarding premarital sex as a disqualification for marriage (i'm really unclear on how a non-christian cohabiting couple makes a viable marriage, but a christian one somehow would not). or you should do some serious rethinking on your position on the same.
personally, i'm for the former. it's been too long since the church took a good look at the cultural institution of marriage that christ comments on in the NT in comparison with our present day cultural institution of marriage. they are just not analogous and i think it's a mistake to apply scripture as if they are.
B-Mama
That's just it! If I believed that pre-marital sex disqualified a couple from marriage, statistics show that there would be very few marriages! I wouldn't even disqualify a cohabitating Christian couple from marriage. I would have grounds for challenging their position in that we both (supposedly) believe in the authority of Scripture, but I wouldn't refuse to do the ceremony.
On the other hand, when you have a non-Christian couple that sees the Bible in the same way as a phonebook or VCR manual, telling them not to cohabitate before marriage makes no sense. They don't look at the world in the same way a Christian would. In that sense, I wouldn't want to lead with the, "You don't believe like me so I won't do your wedding" angle. I can tell them what I think would be the best for their relationship, but I don't want to start by alienating them. I'll have a chance to explain the metaphor of marriage at their wedding, but I may not get a chance to do that if I refuse their ceremony.
Does that make sense?
j-daddy my friend! you know i miss you so muchly.
then you've picked the wrong issue: you don't have an issue with marrying couples who have had premarital sex. period. in that case, there is no need to distinguish at all. what would be different for you (if i'm understanding you correctly) is how you would counsel them leading up to the marriage.
is the "supposedly" modifying believe or we both? LOL… regardless, i think you've off point again. the issue isn't whether or not scripture has authority, but how we interpret scripture that is potentially at issue (like whether scripture should be interpreted literally, which aspects are cultural or historical like ummm… say near eastern ancient marriage practices). i'm not telling you anything you haven't heard before i'm sure.
and to be fair, i think most non-christians have a fair bit of respect for the bible and its moral teachings.
I hear you. Although I will say that a significant amount of the couples I have married who are not Christians feel too shamed to get married in a church. The shame comes from feeling like they don't "measure up" to the standards of the church. Part of that standard comes from the almost universal disobedience of the "don't live together before marriage" rule. These couples would not be opposed to getting married in a church, but there is so much red tape to get through, they end up choosing other places.
To me, that is a lost opportunity. Why? Because we exalt our cultural interpretation of Scripture (as you suggested) over the flesh-and-blood, messy people in front of us. When our theology wins over people, the Church loses.
Thank you for the brisk-but-welcomed slap in the face. Up at Bethel right now, wishing you were part of the conversation we're having!
Honestly, though…it's good there is tape. If you're not willing to jump through some hoops for the good of your union then you're probably not all that ready for a union. I know when I went through my marriage prep it was with eyes wide open. My dad, who jumped hoops to marry my mom in the church, but remained agnostic was annoyed with my hoops. I gently told him that this was the right way for me and I didn't regret a single jump…it was all part of the process and it was there to make sure I knew what I was getting myself into. It's part of the rock…sand is no good for building a strong foundation.
I'm curious what your take would be if it were a christian couple.
Mariah
If a Christian couple came to me, I would have a basis to work from (the Bible). The Bible is very clear what happens during sexual intercourse: Union. That union, the two becoming one, is for marriage and marriage alone.
Since we are Christians, we agree that the Bible, interpreted in its proper context, is authoritative. I would then have permission to speak into their lives. I could hold them to the Christian standard outlined clearly in the pages of Scripture.
Does that help?
K…I will just be a pain here because I really want to know…
Let's say Jane and John two young Christians, meet, fall in love and pledge their troth privately with one another declaring their intent to love, honor and cherish in the eyes of God and each other for as long as they both shall live. Then consummate their union.
That would have been good enough in Scotland years ago. Are those people who pledged a vow of love before God less married because there wasn't a pastor present? Are they sinning if they grasp the concept of the union…that they two have become one in the eyes of God?
YES!!!!!!!
Susan, you nailed it. Thank you so much. This is just the case I keep harping on. If two people grasp the concept of union and consent to it, they have become one in the eyes of God. They require no help from the church or a pastor.
Marriage begins with consent.
It’s a mistake to think this is only about performing ceremonies in church or pastoring ceremonies. Who meets criteria, and who doesn’t meet it getting or loosing this hallowed rentable space? It’s about sin and redemption and what the church does when a couple shows up on its doorstep. The title of the blog, “Is ‘No Sex Before Marriage’ a Realistic Expectation?” is really a moot question.
How the church deals with sexual sin is the real question here. Yes, I think a Christian realistically can maintain chastity. A non-believer may not stay chaste (nor a Christian) but for this argument Justin supposes the majority are. I’ll go with it.
I think when a couple come seeking a wedding it is the time to dig deep and enter in to hard questions with them. “Of course we will talk to you. We want to have you here! Do you know that Jesus takes away sin?” If they all have had sex it does no good to simply turn them away. Bring them in and show them the gospel. Shock them with the freedom Jesus gives from sin!
"How the church deals with sexual sin is the real question here."
I disagree. I think the real question is, how is sexual sin defined? Most pastors and churchgoers seem define sex outside of marriage as a sin. No grey area there, I agree. But what constitutes a marriage? Most people seem to equate "marriage" to "wedding". Are they one and the same?
Scripture is clear that marriage is a holy and divinely established covenant. This does not require a "wedding," but it does require proclaimation and promise.
I couldn't agree more. Marriage is such a beautiful covenant and is very clearly holy and sacred.
So, what constitutes "proclamation and promise"? Can you expand on this some?
I can see your point with non-Christian couples, but I think it's placing their marriage on shaky ground as those who cohabitate before marriage are twice as likely to divorce.
I think there are circumstances were this can be ok for instance I know of an inner-city pastor who has married a couple who were living together who came to Christ and wanted to do right. They also did not have the financial means to separate. In that circumstance you either marry them or you help them with housing until their wedding.
I am stunned at some churches who lend their buildings to random weddings where the highest requirement is they use the church’s wedding coordinator. Forget that. I fully think it reasonable the church put helpful requirements down before marrying a couple. Require pre-marriage counseling from the church. Not two hours, but weeks of classes around teachers and engaged Christians where the gospel is preached. Why not require temporary celibacy until the wedding? Who would that surprise? I don’t think anyone believes God is for free open sex!
No one is talking about "free open sex" here. If a couple is coming to you to discuss marriage, they've already made a commitment to each other. If they're having sex, it's most likely not free and open. We make so many assumptions….
Do they really want to “go straight” as a friend said to me? Then it’s time for Jesus. If they’re not Christian why are they at the church in the first place? A beautiful location? Keeping someone in the family happy? If they don’t want a Christian wedding there are other places that are beautiful. You don’t have to let them come. It is a disservice to the couple to keep them happy and deny the gravity of sin and Jesus’ following grace.
Again, I think this is more about the couple becoming Christian than whether or not they had sex. Don’t fixate on the ceremony; provide Jesus, the community and support that could lead to belief.
Why shouldn't it be a realistic expection? My granddaughter was a virgin when she got married last month. It's all a matter of personal choice and whether it's important to you.
@newlutheran, I agree with your words. It is a feeling of marriage that I think you make with God, but make public with a ceremony. God has matched us with the person that He wants us to spend the rest of our life with, and when the two of you feel that, I see it as a marriage. It also makes sense financially, too.
@justinwise It's posts like this that make you a Deviant…Will you preach on this subject on Saturday?…..only kidding, Johanna would not be pleased. See you Friday
Marriage isn't a feeling…it's a convent.
haha… COVENANT! I'm sure sometimes it seems like a convent…haha…
It's most definitely a covenant… between a man and a woman made before God. I fail to see how a church or pastor validate this covenant.
@ nate beaird yes, covenant is the word i was looking for at 11 last night, but couldn't think of it.
@newlutheran is it so much a validation as it is making that covenant made public? That is how I see it. In terms of the state, though, I think having a public official (i.e. pastor, justice of peace, etc.) is needed for legality reasons.
Agreed. The wedding is a ceremony for the benefit of the attendees, not the bride and groom. I truly believe that in most cases, the covenant of marriage began prior to the wedding day, even if the state didn't recognize it yet.
I was asked by my sister to perform her wedding ceremony (she asked me as a licensed minister). At the time I wasn't sure how to respond. I felt conflicted because I thought to myself, "She's living with her boyfriend. I know they're living in 'SIN'. If I perform their wedding ceremony then I must agree with their choices. God is not at the center of their relationship. How could I possibly do marriage counseling if I don't agree with their Non-Christian lifestyle?And so on…" Needless to say, I told her I wouldn't perform her wedding ceremony. …
Why do you automatically associate cohabitation with "living in 'SIN'"?
I'll jump in here quickly. I know for me personally, I automatically assume that people living together are sexually active. Mike, I know that wasn't your case and that is truly awesome!
From my perspective, I would not have had the same self-control had I been in a similar situation. My guess is most people wouldn't either. While I believe staying celibate when living with a future spouse is possible, I wouldn't recommend it simply because human nature is what it is.
Thanks Justin. I agree that cohabitation typically involves sex. But, this still begs the same question from me, and it's one that I'm not getting much of an answer on. When does marriage begin? If it's on the wedding day, then I'd agree with you that cohabitation prior to the wedding usually equals sex and this premarital sex equals sin. But what if the couple sitting before you, requesting a wedding, is already married? Do you define marriage by the wedding or by the consent of the couple? Is it possible that marriage begins with consent? If so, the wedding becomes merely a party and cohabitation (sexually active or not) prior to the wedding day would have no impact.
I'm interested in your thoughts on this in particular:
“Similarly, if he would sleep with a maiden who does not yet belong to him nor is engaged to him, it is doubtful whether it would be sufficient that he by himself alone would call it a marriage or consider it to be such. But I know very well that, if she consents to it and so belongs to him, after this, cohabiting with her is a marriage, etc.”
Where does marriage begin? I think answering that is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. Frankly, who really knows? I think the marriage ceremony is a matter of practicality and proclamation more than anything else.
The only example I can point to is my relationship with my wife. Do I think that our covenant together began before August 18th, 2006? Yes, I do. Our hearts and minds were being intertwined way before our wedding day. However, we made a public declaration on that day, before the eyes of God and people, and it's the reason we point to that day as our "covenant" day.
Do we need to bury people in wooden boxes with the corpse decked out in its "Sunday best"? I think we would both answer, "No, of course not." But we do and we do it for myriad of different reasons, not the least of which are cultural. You could achieve the same effect by simply digging a hole in the backyard and dumping the body right in.
I think the modern notion of marriage is profoundly cultural-centric and needs to be treated as such. Do we need the ceremony? Absolutely not. That's absurd. It's a cultural event that we allow to shape our experience. We could achieve the same effect by simply looking at our betrothed and saying to them, "I want to marry you" while having the repeat it back to us. But we don't. Why? For a whole lot of different reasons, not the least of which are cultural.
I don't think my wedding ceremony "married" me to my wife. My guess is that process started somewhere long before the actual ceremony. The wedding itself was just the easiest place to put a pin on the map of our relationship that said, "You are here."
Does that make sense?
(continued) … As a result, her soon-to-be sister-in-law went online and instantly received her minister's credential for the sole purpose of performing the wedding ceremony. I've always looked back at that as a HUGE missed opportunity to speak into my sister's life the heart of God. Because I have grown to believe that it's through relationships that God is most relevant through the eyes of others, I have great regrets about choosing to place religion above my relationship with my sister. …
(continued) … I don't believe I know Jesus to have ever gotten caught up in the Law above Love. I wish I had the maturity to see this at the time, but unfortunately I was too caught up in the latter. I was concerned with what others in my Christian community would think if they found out that I performed the wedding ceremony of a young couple living in SIN. As it is, since my siser's wedding over 2 years ago I've seen her once. She has a daughter, my niece, who I've not gotten the chance to see grow. I could go on and on, but I won't. I think my personal story speaks for itself as to my stance on the subject. Thanks for setting the stage Justin. Keep challenging the hearts of men to strive towards the hear of God!
** Keep challenging the hearts of men to strive toward the HEART of God!
D
That's a very powerful story. It's stories like these that help me to re-evaluate cultural norms in the context of Scripture. We, as Christians, have a tremendous task to bring the truth and reality of Scripture into the modern day. Anything that gets in the way of that, in my opinion, needs to be questioned and laid aside if found unhelpful.
A few questions for those who feel it would be best to rebuke the people who are living together or not let them marry in a church:
1.) Does this mean we should also stop performing funerals in churches for people who lived in sin when they died?
2.) Along with that, when someone dies, should we rebuke the family of the deceased before performing the funeral?
3.) I wonder, how many of us here were "loved" into the Kingdom of God rather than being "rebuked" into the Kingdom of God.
Love this comment! I will post my thoughts that line up with this thought shortly! Good call Dave
Justin you put the "heart" in Deviant.
In a non-cheesy way: I didn't put it there, Jesus did. I just try and recognize it where I can. But, thank you for your compliment nonetheless
Inmininstry is not keeping you busy enough!! ha. I'm glad that you've brought this up, though. Its a tough spot because you really can't have a 'Christian marriage' without some sort of relationship with Christ (bride and groom). So, I guess the hope is to get them to start moving on that spectrum from complete apathy (atheism?) to faith (relationship with Jesus). So, I guess the end result or point where you'd marry them would be when they cross that threshold. I don't think you can coerce that or contrive it; its much more organic than that (as are all things with faith). I suppose the route to helping them get there will look different for different people. I know that it will include a community, counseling, getting into the word, prayer, baptism?
This is all just so hard with how we deal with weddings nowadays. I got engaged last week, and I am already on an all-out hunt for ceremony/reception places….I think this is why they just married people during the service way back when. You'd have room to grow and mature as a Christian couple without being pressured into a wedding.
I read on here or somewhere else that Jesus seemed to offend the Pharisees, and He didn't really offend "sinners". I'd just like to point out that:
1. The Pharisees were sinners.
2. Jesus said, "Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is near." Did Jesus tell sinners to stop sinning? What does the word "repent" mean and/or imply? Was He telling those who believed to repent? I would have to say that as a believer, yes… I'm supposed to repent of my sins. But looking at what Jesus was saying and doing… was He confronting sinners in their sin? Was He telling them to stop sinning?
Dean – How did you become a Christian? Can you briefly share your testimony?
I grew up in church. I learned about Jesus from my parents and in Sunday School. When I was 5 or 6 years old, I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior. Since that time, I've had my doubts about God, but He's always cleared up those doubts and helped me stay on the right path.
Thanks Dean, I appreciate you sharing that. Throughout this conversation I have had a couple phrases coming to mind. The first is when Paul talks about "should we go on sinning all the more, just so grace can increase? no!" Obviously a life lived with a desire to sin is not a full life, it's not what God intends. However, the other phrase going through my head is , "do we love people into the kingdom, or rebuke them?"
I would venture to say that most people commenting here were loved into the Kingdom. Meaning someone took an interest in them, showed them love, which pointed them to the One true love – the one who's grace finds us just as we are – empty handed but alive in his hands.
My guess is your parents told you about Jesus because they loved you and you accepted that because you loved and trusted them. What if your parents only told you what you were doing wrong growing up and had no relationship with you. Would you have been as willing to listen to their teachings about Jesus? Obvisouly they loved you and had to correct you and teach you right ways of living at times. But you listened to them because you knew they loved you and you loved them.
We can't force people into the Kingdom by simply acknowledging their sin. They have to know we love them first, and they need to trust us so that when we do acknowledge their sin, they desire to repent and turn to God. That is why the greatest commandment is Love, it superscedes all things. Love first, then correct and rebuke – just like you were as a child. Thoughts?
I agree. I replied to newlutheran on an earlier comment and said, "When I share Christ, I don't use the hell-fire and damnation approach." And I REALLY DON'T. Truthfully.
My thing is, when I see someone watering down the sin problem, I get upset. I believe that as Christians, we must be careful not to ignore sin. Justin said, "I'd rather they sleep together than have them alienated from the church for the rest of their lives."
There is a proper way to handle those types of situations and I believe with all my heart that the pastors I know – are handling it correctly AND in love for sure.
I'm not a pastor, but if a couple came to my church and wanted to get married, I'd set up a meeting with them and I'd explain to them what marriage is, according to the Bible. It would get brought up (in love) that living together and sleeping together is a sin and that they need to repent of that sin. I wouldn't wait until the ceremony to explain to them what marriage is, to God.
Christian or not, even the secular world will tell you that living together before marriage is not a good idea. It's just a fact. Look it up. I bet you won't find one resource that will say otherwise. It's just wise counsel to warn the couple of that.
Oh I agree! I'm not saying it's a good idea or that it should be encouraged necessarily. But just because something is unwise doesn't make it a sin.
As far as I can tell, early protestant reformers seemed to believe that cohabitation actually initiates marriage if both parties are consenting to it. From my reading, I find Biblical support for this argument. The modern church seems to agree that cohabitation is sinful, yet early writers seemed to see it as the start of the sacred covenant of marriage created by God.
I really hope the church isn't so blinded by fear of sexual sin that they're calling potentially sacred acts sinful.
I'm still not sold on the sinfulness of living together or sleeping together prior to the wedding day. But it's based on my belief that the wedding day is not the start of the couple's marriage.
Matthew 11:20-24 (NIV)
20 Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21 "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."
I have been reading through this blog and have tried to look at this from a "non-believer" point of view, which is hard to do sometimes. I myself need to work on not being "quick to judge" to others and the things they do that I do not believe is right. It's such a hard line to walk sometimes, especially since I'm a very "everything is black and white" kind of thinker. But I pose this question, what does a non-believer think after reading all the comments and replies?
When I put on my non-believer "thinking hat" on I come to this conclusion, "Man, there's a lot of separation in the church. Why would I want to be apart of something where people just argue their view-point all the time?" Comments like "I'm VERY frustrated with you" really don't help someone see Christ's LOVE through us. Not trying to point anyone out, just want everyone who posts to remember that we are witnesses no matter the "kind" of communication we use.
With that aside….When are we supposed to let others know what they are doing "wrong"? Are we only supposed to support fellow brothers and sisters in Christ by keeping each other accountable? "Am I my brother's keeper?"
Do we change what is right to appeal to someone just so they wont be mad at us? If we serve a God of Truth, can't we let His word speak for itself? The world is full of lost people who don't know what to believe- The Church HAS to stand on the word of God, and do so in love.
But pointing out what our foundations of faith are is not hatred.
The question remains where do we draw the line of who we will help as God's representatives and is their heart condition always the check-point for that line? Do we only marry couples who have all of their junk dealt with? They may not be living together but could be involved in many things that would be labeled as sin! Does sin disqualify our ministry? Do we make them wear a wire and make sure they are not all bound up by other sins… like gossip? I don't think having sex outside of marriage is a God idea, but does this action disqualify them of our love and presence as followers of Christ!
Other questions to consider… do you officiate the marriage of a couple who is not having sex, and is not living together, but one or both of them have been married before and they have no "biblical" grounds for their divorce? Do we tell them we can't marry them because God hates their earlier divorces? The Catholic Church would say they are welcome in the door and they will take their money, but they can't partake in the sacraments that are meant to bring to earth the presence of God because of their divorce! Seems to me the call for the church to re-think how we do things in our culture and context is a worthy task and regardless of what Dean thinks, as long as the Glory of God is the ultimate result I believe we can do this in a way that honors God!
Peace
Tony
Clearly we have no right to judge anyone whatever their past or present is. this case is no different.
but this will never (far be it) an excuse for anyone to engage in sex before marriage.
i wouldn't place a bunch of guideliness on them. if they ask,fine, but it's outreach.
I'm chiming in late (the joys of getting ready for vacation) but I think a couple who has gone through a decent premarital course is in much better shape for the rest of their lives than a couple who hasn't. I look at the ceremony as leverage to get a couple through premarital, so they can have a fighting chance in our divorce-happy society. Perhaps that's a twisted version of a Jesus-reality, but if the church's goal is to create solid marriages, I think we have to reconsider what the #1 priority here is.
One more. Last year I was at a retreat for Kenyan pastors. There was a tricky situation they were asking for help with. A man with three wives started coming to their church. He was a great leader, and had completely turned his life over to Jesus, post-three marriages. There were two separate questions: Do we need to ask him to leave the church, and if not, is it okay to use him as a leader, given his heart, charisma and gifts. After much (MUCH) debate, one wise, almost zen-like voice rose above the fray: Do you accept his tithe checks? Perhaps that's a sentence we could consider here too.
Whoo hoo! That's a hot topic if ever I've seen one. No wonder you have over 100 comments on this. I'll have to bookmark this to read all of them later on.
I definitely understand the heart of what you're saying. We so often place outward actions above heart issues. The Pharisees were more concerned about making sure people looked good on the outside whereas Jesus was more concerned about their heart. The simple fact was that the woman who washed Jesus feet was closer to him than any of the religious leaders in the room.
There's a fine line between excusing sin and embracing the sinner. It's not our job to judge people. We're only called to proclaim truth and love. I have a feeling far too many people have been ruined for life because a church was more concerned about whether they were having sex before marriage instead of loving the person and letting God do the convicting.
Great post dude! Love the discussion.
Sorry, I disagree – I think that's against scripture. Not saying you have to do it thru the state or anything, but God talks about committing to each other for life before having sex. And if you do have sex, then you have to marry them (old testament law, but still).
Why are we so concerned about sex? Sex in the bible is pretty crazy stuff. However, the message of working for justice, feeding the hungry, and looking out for those who are vulnerable is a very clear theme throughout. Let's stop freaking out about sex and feed the hungry. Then they we will know we are Christians by are love for our neighbor not by our sexual behavior.
In a post-Christendom situation (where not everyone is a Christian), why do we continue to bless drive-thru marriages? It seems more like a form of nationalism (gotta keep society running!) than any real thick practice of evangelism, love, or social justice. The creepy government documents only reinforce that impression. Is the minister representing God or the state? Well, who has a bigger interest in marrying non-Christians? The People of God? Or society in general? I strongly suspect the latter, especially in North America.
The Catholic Church holds that marriage was the first sacrament as Adam and Eve were married by God in Genesis with: “And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it.” —Genesis 1:27-28
“Have you not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.” —Matthew 19:4-5
I agree with everything you just said.
Adam and Eve were married by God, with no interference or help from anyone else.
It is true that marriage is the only prelapsarian (before the fall) sacrament. The natural law was already present, Jesus elevated this aspect of the natural because of its inherent goodness and beauty and made it the sacrament it is today. The Catholic Church does not make up sacraments but respects and abides in the teachings of Christ. What God makes man cannot dissolve.
But is a pastor a 'civil servant' or one who is to uphold the truth of the Word of God? If I am a civil servant, then I should just set a fee and marry all who come in the door. If I am a pastor then I should have some Biblical reference for what I do and why.
But is a pastor a ‘civil servant’ or one who is to uphold the truth of the Word of God? If I am a civil servant, then I should just set a fee and marry all who come in the door. If I am a pastor then I should have some Biblical reference for what I do and why.