Bringing Protest & Disruption To Church:

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Bingo. A very good immediate observation.

So, we know that marriage isn't a "sacrament". So, let's ask a different question: Where in the Bible do we see marriage as an "ordinance" performed by the church???

If I recall correctly, when a man and woman consummated their relationship they were considered married. So, if a man slept with a woman against her will he had to pay a bride price to her father. Abrahams servant went and got Rebekah from Abrahams kin and when he brought her home Isaac slept with her and that consummated the marriage.

I don't think this translates into our world, because we have contractual laws to follow, in our society, marriage is a contract, which I suppose is your point Aquila?

The bible does stipulate that men in leadership positions will be the husband of one wife. And what God has joined becomes one flesh, similar to the relationship between Christ and the Church. So the relationship is holy.

that is all that comes to mind right now.

[Amanah]

Aquila, say I'm married and my husband cheats on me and divorces me, and I get spousal support along with child support.

And I meet someone who is free and loves the Lord as I do, and we want to commit to each other and to the Lord, but I don't want to lose my support, so we decide to make a commitment to each other before the Lord without a civil contract, and we consummate our *marriage* am I living in sin?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

If I recall correctly, when a man and woman consummated their relationship they were considered married. So, if a man slept with a woman against her will he had to pay a bride price to her father. Abrahams servant went and got Rebekah from Abrahams kin and when he brought her home Isaac slept with her and that consummated the marriage.

Yes, ultimately, consensual consummation between a man and a woman establishes a marriage. That's why historically an unconsummated marriage could be annulled.

I don't think this translates into our world, because we have contractual laws to follow, in our society, marriage is a contract, which I suppose is your point Aquila?

Yes, in our society marriage is simply a civil contract. It used to be a private contract. Before that, it was a verbal contract recognized by families. There isn't even a wedding ceremony prescribed in Scripture. The early church blessed couples, but didn't unite them in marriage. In fact, under Roman law non-citizens didn't have the right to a marriage recognized by law. The church simply blessed couples who claimed union, or who had a previously established wedding under Roman law or Jewish tradition. Once the church was officially recognized by Rome and Christian ministers were deemed Roman officials, the church began drafting ceremonies.

For the most part of human history, marriage was a matter of common law, not civil law.

With my understanding in mind, you might be able to see better why I didn't lose any sleep over attending a ceremony that I don't even find a biblical mandate.

The bible does stipulate that men in leadership positions will be the husband of one wife. And what God has joined becomes one flesh, similar to the relationship between Christ and the Church. So the relationship is holy.

that is all that comes to mind right now.

The relationship is holy. The formalities are cultural.

I like many things about the Quakers. That's why a brother accused me of being a Quaker. lol I like what George Fox, founder of the Quakers, once said about marriage:

"For the right joining in marriage is the work of the Lord only, and not the priests' or the magistrates'; for it is God's ordinance and not man's; and therefore Friends cannot consent that they should join them together: for we marry none; it is the Lord's work, and we are but witnesses" ~ George Fox, 1669

Outsiders sometimes criticized Quaker couples for "living in sin" because they married each other without priests or ministers. Some couples even choose to marry within the meeting without registering their marriages with the government, a tradition dating back to Quakerism's earliest days. If a couple later needs to prove that they are married, the Quaker wedding certificate signed by witnesses at the ceremony may be sufficient in some states of the United States but not all. And frankly, many Quaker couples don't care. They'd rather the government not be involved in their marital relationship.

Here are some excerpts from "Faith and Practice": "Quaker Marriage Procedure"...

"Marriage is a sacred commitment of two people to love one another in faithful partnership with the expectation that the relationship will mature and be mutually enriching. Friends know that marriage depends on the inner experiences of the couple who marry and not on any external service or words. Thus, the ceremony in which the couple enter into this commitment is performed by the couple alone, in the presence of God, the families, and the worshiping community. Both the solemnity and the joy of the occasion are enhanced by its simplicity."

This is why most Quaker weddings do not have an elder or preacher officiating. The tradition is that the couple stands before those gathered and they self-officiate the wedding. Sure, an elder can offer blessings or lead the order of events, but the couple ty establishes their union through giving "promises" (Quakers don't believe in making oaths or vows).

"While most Friends’ marriage ceremonies conform to civil law, couples who do not want, or are not eligible to contract a legal marriage occasionally ask for a ceremony of commitment or a wedding under the care of the Meeting. The Religious Society of Friends has long asserted its freedom to conduct under divine leading marriage ceremonies not conforming to civil law."

Quakers allow Quaker couples to decide if they want their marriages recognized by the government or not. This is also one reason why Quakers are very open to giving full fellowship to couples who begin attending and are not legally married.

Our house church elder used to be Quaker. Like the Quakers, none of our elders have state minister's licenses. Our elders are more like spiritual fathers or mentors than licensed CEOs or priests who lord over us. Regarding marriage, our statement of faith reads,

F. Elders serving in Christian ministry within the Apostolic Fellowship are to disengage civil marriage from Christian marriage in the performance of pastoral duties. Elders are to refuse to serve as agents of the state in marriage. Elders are to decline from signing government provided marriage licenses and/or certificates. Elders are to ask that couples seek civil marriage separately from any church-related vows, promises, commitments, and/or blessings. (Section 4; Article F)

So in short, we are not active participants in the government's "civil marriage" program. We encourage each couple to seek civil marriage separately from their church related marriage blessings.

I said all of that to explain why I don't place much spiritual value on "wedding ceremonies". I don't feel that it is a "holy sacrament" or a "holy ceremony". I don't believe that any special dispensation of grace takes place on account of the ceremony.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Aquila, say I'm married and my husband cheats on me and divorces me, and I get spousal support along with child support.

And I meet someone who is free and loves the Lord as I do, and we want to commit to each other and to the Lord, but I don't want to lose my support, so we decide to make a commitment to each other before the Lord without a civil contract, and we consummate our *marriage* am I living in sin?

First, I'd have to ask, are you committing a crime? If the laws in your state are such that you would not be committing a crime, I'd have to ask a second question. Does your faith tradition believe that God alone unites a man and woman in the bonds of marriage? And if so, does your faith traditionally bless couples who form unions outside of civil marriage? If yes, as the Quakers do, I'd say no. You are not living in sin.

But I would warn you. Without a civil contract you will lose opportunity to claim various legal benefits relating to this new union. I'd advise that you talk to an attorney and establish necessary wills, powers of attorney, and perhaps even a cohabitation agreement wherein the two of you have set the terms of your union personally.

I'd also advise that you find out what the common law marriage laws are in your state. If your state recognizes common law marriages, and you profess to be married and meet specific criteria, your marriage might be recognized legally rather you like it or not. Thus you could open yourself up to the possibility of litigation that would cause you to lose the very spousal support that you're trying to keep.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

First, I'd have to ask, are you committing a crime?

this is an odd question, I'm baffled by it. but I don't think its a crime, no.

[Amanah]

it was a hypothetical situation and a hypothetical question.

I think our current welfare system encourages couples to live together rather than get married because a single parent with children can collect benefits that a married couple can not. It needs to be reformed.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Aquila, say I'm married and my husband cheats on me and divorces me, and I get spousal support along with child support.

And I meet someone who is free and loves the Lord as I do, and we want to commit to each other and to the Lord, but I don't want to lose my support, so we decide to make a commitment to each other before the Lord without a civil contract, and we consummate our *marriage* am I living in sin?

A man and woman are joined together by God... NOT government (The Bible):

"For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." ~ God, Genesis 2:24

"What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” ~ Jesus, Mark 10:9 (ESV)

Here are some interesting thoughts about Marriage to contemplate:

"My personal opinion is government shouldn’t be involved. The whole country would be better off if individuals made those decisions and it was a private matter." ~ Ron Paul (Republican Senator)

"The best approach is to make marriage a private matter. When we no longer believe that civilization is dependent on government expansion, regulating excesses, and a license for everything we do, we will know that civilization and the ideas of liberty are advancing." ~ Ron Paul (Republican Senator)

"Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers be marrying people with State marriage licenses." ~ Pastor Matt Trewhella (Baptist Pastor)

"Both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriage in their Family Bibles. So should we." ~ Pastor Matt Trewhella (Baptist Pastor)

"As a minister, I cannot in good conscience perform a marriage which would place people under this immoral body of laws. I also cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so I have to act as an agent of the State—literally! I would have to sign the marriage license, and I would have to mail it into the State. Given the State’s demand to usurp the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given it’s unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, it would be an act of idolatry for me to do so." ~ Pastor Matt Trewhella (Baptist Pastor)

Here are some excerpts from "Faith and Practice": "Quaker Marriage Procedure"...

"Marriage is a sacred commitment of two people to love one another in faithful partnership with the expectation that the relationship will mature and be mutually enriching. Friends know that marriage depends on the inner experiences of the couple who marry and not on any external service or words. Thus, the ceremony in which the couple enter into this commitment is performed by the couple alone, in the presence of God, the families, and the worshiping community. Both the solemnity and the joy of the occasion are enhanced by its simplicity."

"While most Friends’ marriage ceremonies conform to civil law, couples who do not want, or are not eligible to contract a legal marriage occasionally ask for a ceremony of commitment or a wedding under the care of the Meeting. The Religious Society of Friends has long asserted its freedom to conduct under divine leading marriage ceremonies not conforming to civil law."

Bishop Valentius (St. Valentine), according to tradition, conducted clandestine weddings that were not recognized by the Roman government:

"A former Roman Emperor claimed that married men made poor soldiers, so banned young citizens from tying the knot. However, Bishop Valentine disagreed, and soon became notorious for his undergroud, clandestine weddings. He was soon jailed, and ultimately beheaded – though not before falling madly in love with the jailer's daughter. Legend has it that on the night of his execution, he passed his love a note which said 'from your Valentine'- and thus the tradition was born." ~ The History of Valentine's Day

Christians are admonished not to subject one another to the courts of the unbelievers (that certainly would include civil divorce courts):

"3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! 4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?" ~ Paul, I Corinthians 6:3-7 (ESV)

As a 2007 New York Times op/ed points out, for centuries marriage was a private arrangement that didn't involve the licensing or the government...

“For most of Western history, they didn’t, because marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents’ agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity. For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows — even out alone by the haystack — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married."

This was just some food for thought.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

it was a hypothetical situation and a hypothetical question.

I think our current welfare system encourages couples to live together rather than get married because a single parent with children can collect benefits that a married couple can not. It needs to be reformed.

I agree. Sometimes civil marriage, under current laws, can put a household in greater dire straights than living together. It's true.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

this is an odd question, I'm baffled by it. but I don't think its a crime, no.

In some states, cohabitation without being legally married is actually a crime on the books. And in other states, you might have to claim all income earners in the home. If you make over a set amount specific benefits can be denied to you. Yet in other states, it wouldn't matter.

I know it is confusing, but it is a good thing to know if one seriously were to consider such a course of action.

[Aquila]

So, frankly, all these Christians who are up in arms over "civil marriage" laws... are only protecting a civic government program that isn't even a full 100 years old yet in many states.

And you don't see them up in arms over unbiblical divorce and remarriage laws. Oh, but gay people cause them to get off their duffs and fight for a cause. Frankly, it is just politics using gays as a scape goat to motivate their base. And people who don't know their history or what is really afoot fall for it hook line and sinker.