I have a question for the contributors and anyone else wanting to weigh in.
Let’s say gay marriage becomes permanently endorsed by more states and/or the whole U.S. What should the Church’s official response be?
Our offenses against marriage have already degraded the institution with the introduction of no-fault divorce (in some states) and the legitimization of bastardy. Mariage is no longer widely considered to be a sacred and inviolable bond. Fatherhood and male headship are dishonored, and being a stay-at-home mother viewed with contempt.
For secular government to take upon itself the prerogative to change the definition of marriage is the last straw.
Therefore, I propose that the Church convene a disciplinary regional council (in the United States and Canada) for the following purposes:
1) To declare civil marriages performed after a certain date (i.e., after gay marriage came into effect) unlawful (contrary to natural and ecclesiastical law), and therefore null and void in the eyes of God.
2) To decree that no persons civilly “married” after said date are to be admitted to church membership and/or communion.
3) To decree that all such persons may be admitted to membership and communion only after their unions have been blessed by a minister of the Gospel.
Well, dear contributors, what do you think about the idea and possibility of such a Church assembly?
“Therefore, I propose that the Church convene…”
To whom does “the Church” refer?
Why, all orthodox Christian churches, of course! ;)
Andrew,
I’d be all for a national council in order to address any issue, really. But I honestly think that while such a thing would be better than nothing, regional councils on doctrinal matters are of a higher importance. Unless and until the Church can proclaim to the world its unity in the Gospel, then a council made up of separate communions telling the world that its same-sex marriages are bunk won’t carry a whole lot more weight than each denomination making its own individual statements.
Fair enough, Jonathan, but I would point out that the very first Church council (at Jerusalem) convened to address practical needs of the churches and decree on moral matters, not to proclaim the Gospel.
If a disciplinary council were to be called, it would primarily serve to establish a standard for which persons already baptized and professing faith should be allowed communicant membership. Only secondarily would such a council address the world at large.
Finally, common praxis implies common agreement. Such a council could establish a precedent and initial framework for later more doctrinal councils.
Andrew,
Yes. But the Jerusalem council was an apostolic council making authoritative decrees to a church which had not yet fragmented. Also, I’d argue that it did proclaim the Gospel. The fact that Gentiles are accepted as God’s adopted children in Christ apart from the works of the law is actual an essential element of the Gospel. This is the matter which was settled in that first council.
Jonathan, you made three important points about the Jerusalem council: 1) The Council had apostolic authority, 2) the Church was not yet divided and, 3) the Council did announce the Gospel.
All good points, and very true. However,
1) My post was predicated on the assumption that the Church retains her apostolic commission and authority to declare the oracles of God.
2) The Church is visibly divided, but one in Faith. I am convinced that all who sincerely confess the Trinity and Jesus as Lord are in fundamental agreement about the Gospel and are working toward a more complete understanding of it.
3) The first Council did not come close to articulating anything like the full substance of the Gospel in a systematic way.
I’ll counter your point further by saying my proposed council could say something about how Christian marriage is a sign of the Marriage between Christ and his Church, and, that in that Union there is only one Husband and one Bride since all believers are now joined in One Body.
How does that sound?
Andrew, I’m not sure that I really understand the 3-point proposal in your original post. It seems to me, however, that although the Church can and should speak prophetically to this issue, it is the duty of (the citizens of) the State to handle this problem. I believe that marriage (and hence the family) are common grace institutions. I believe the State is also a common grace institution designed primarily to protect the institution of the family (and hence the institution of marriage). The State is, therefore, a second-order institution and, by definition, has no authority to define marriage- as you pointed out. But, I do think (contrary- at least I think so!- to your point 3) the State has the authority to recognize marriages. I do not think that unions need to be “blessed by a minister of the Gospel.” The Church cannot and should not claim a corner on the marriage-market. And so (contrary to point 1- I think!) the Church does not have the authority to declare that (all) marriages are “null and void before God.” Of course, the Church can declare as much in the case of same-sex “unions”- but that declaration doesn’t make it null and void. My pagan neighbors can (and should) make the same declaration. Marriage belongs to them. And that is a good thing for us all. I hope that this makes sense!
Peace
Hi Jason,
Thanks for engaging the discussion. I assume when you say you don’t understand my proposal you mean that it doesn’t make sense in your view of how church and state function and relate to one another.
1) Perhaps it would help if I suggested that this proposal is not primarily meant to discipline those outside the Church, but rather to ensure that Christians are able to enter into sanctified marriages and encourage the understanding that marriage is something more than what the modern secular world thinks it is.
2) My proposal is not meant to deny the authority magistrates have to protect the family or even to legally recognize marriages in general. However, the modern secular state no longer recognizes the authority of God’s law (whether natural or ecclesiastical) and therefore has no authority to solemnize any marriage whatsoever, much less sacramental Christian marriage.
3) A final point to make is that while a secular (in the sense of godless) civil ceremony cannot establish a lawful marriage; such unions can participate to a degree in natural marriage, though such participation is invisible and shouldn’t be openly endorsed by society in interests of decency and order.
Thanks Andrew. I think I appreciate these clarifications. A question: By “natural marriage” do you mean a marriage established by a state that (unlike “the modern secular state”) “recognizes the authority of God’s [natural] law”?
Yes, Jason, my understanding is that non-Christian magistrates can solemnify lawful natural marriages, though these are inferior to sacramentally consecrated Christian marriages. It’s the whole grace perfects nature thing.
I’ll throw this into the mix. The Bible says nothing about who should approve or perform weddings. Nothing in the OT suggests that priests preformed weddings. Nothing in the NT suggests that “the church” or her ministers perform weddings. It’s probably the case that the elders at the gate of a town or city had some say about the legality of certain marriages (so Boaz’s inquiry about Ruth), but it doesn’t appear to me that the civil authorities typically approved or performed weddings in the Bible.
This means that we need to be wise about how we go about addressing an issue like this. I’m not sure that putting such authority in the hands of local churches (re: deciding which otherwise normal marriages are valid and which are not) is all that wise. A man and a woman are indeed married if they make covenant vows to one another and consummate the marriage. The validity of their marriage does not depend on some civil ceremony or the authorization of the state. In fact, it does not depend on whether a minister or a church, no matter how orthodox, “blesses” and/or approves of their union.
Not recognizing homosexual unions or “marriages” is one thing. That’s easy enough. They may call it what they want, but it ain’t marriage. But overreacting to this and calling into question the validity and legitimacy of everyone’s marriage because of this issue is another thing entirely.
Jeff, I agree!
Jeff, does “the Bible” have to explicitly describe a wedding for the Church to recognize marriage/weddings as her responsibility? Was not Eve, Adam’s wife? Does not the Bible speak of marriage all throughout? Where does one come up with the notion that a cohabitating man and woman are “married” without acknowledging that the institution itself is founded in God’s covenant people?
Two cohabitating people are fornicators, not spouses, outside of the sacrament of marriage.
I never said or intimated that two cohabiting people are married. Cohabitatition alone does not make a marriage.
Mike,
Hopefully there was nothing derisive intended by your post. Knowing Jeff personally (being neighbors and all), he is anything but a fundamentalist.
Having read your own blog on this post, I know that you have been influenced by the whole “dominion covenant” thing produced by the theonomist crowd. I won’t go down that alley because I don’t at all share the Eusebian-postmillennial construct from which that strain of Christian thinking has emerged. Other interested parties might want to take that up because I think that presupposition informs this one way or another.
More to the point, I would question whether your sacramentology is straight here. Marriage is lawful for both Christians and non-Christians and marriages contracted outside the church–and outside a sacred context altogether–are recognized as such by the church. The general sacramentality we would ascribe to non-Christian marriage relates to the common grace recognition of its sacred character in many cultures, but this recognition is not necessary. Its sacred character is “not extraneous but innate,” to borrow the words of Leo XIII.
The historic position of the church has therefore been that marriage is contracted through the mutual, expressed consent of the persons entering into it (Matrimonium facit consensus). Thus, it is not the church nor even a generally sacred context that makes the sacrament. Rather, as the doctrine expressly teaches, the persons contracting marriage are themselves the ministers of the sacrament. The legal formality of our culture is merely the constructed means by which the contracted covenant secures public recognition (thereby enjoying the legal and economic entitlements associated with it). The matter, form, and intention of the sacrament, however, can exist without that legal construct. The grace of the sacrament, what I think you want to preserve as a distinctive, flows from its right use.
So Jeff is right, and that not only in light of “the bible,” but in light of traditional theological reflection as well.
MJGP+
What makes a marriage then? You said that marriage does not depend upon the Church, and that a man and women can just “make covenant vows to one another.” There has to be binding vows from an authority other than one’s own self.
Mike,
Not sure what you are asking in that last question, but I think that its been answered in #15. Marriage is an ordinance of creation and I suppose that one could say that God is the silent witness to all promises. Explicit recognition of that fact, however, is not necessary to a validly contracted marriage.
MJGP+
Michael,
You forgot to mention the fact that these “ministers” (the two being joined) must have the witness and blessing of the Priest for the marriage to be valid. Touche…;)
Also, Michael, since you mentioned the Roman Catholic Church, under section 1629 of the Catholic Catechism, it states that:
“Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act…Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order and creates rights and duties in the Church between spouses and toward their children…marriage is a state of life in the Church…”
Mike,
Actually, you are wrong on both counts in 18 and 19. You have actually confused the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony–a sacrament of the church that only baptized Christians may enter into–with marriage as a general sacramental institution into which any person–baptized, unbaptized, atheist, Elvis worshipper, or Druid–may enter.
And in fencing, one’s opponent must declare touché.
Blessings,
MJGP+
Now you are playing games. I was clearly speaking of the sacrament, which is referred to as both marriage and holy matrimony. I’m sure you know of an Anglican or Romanist that will divide the two, but I know of some that teach those to be synonymous. So, no, I am not “wrong” and you and your neighbor are not as astute as you think you are.
Blessings,
Mike
Pahls, sorry about my last sentence. That was a bit abrupt.
A church council on the issue of marriage seems rather doltish to me and as usual makes me wonder how out of touch with our culture and society we really are.
How about a national council of repentance for a church which continues to make a mockery out of marriage by pretending that denominationalism is an appropriate way to express the mystery of the faith between Christ and His Bride–making HBO’s polygamous Big Love show look like the most tame thing in the world?
I don’t doubt that it is important to preach and enforce normal Christian values but it seems to me that our Lord’s dictum to take the log out of our own eye would be preferential first to the idea that we need to continue to cross swords with the gay community over these differences.
This battle in our society was lost long ago when we even allowed the matter to become a topic for discussion in the public square. Yeah. Go ahead. Fight on in a battle you’ve already lost. That will work to help us lose the entire war. Better, after getting our tails whipped, to regroup and concentrate on real and important victories such that the war itself doesn’t become a lost cause.
That said, I do believe at root Mike Spreng has a valid point.
I don’t share his conception of marriage as a sacrament and would only endorse the dominical sacraments but his main point that the church (local, national, or otherwise to the extent necessary) has the authority and the right to determine what is and is not allowable in terms of marriage is sound and it is not presenting the whole case to comment as Pahls and Meyers have in response.
For one thing, our conception of church and state is fundamentally flawed if we divide them too harshly and forget that both are instruments of the overall ministry of our Lord. In times past, other generations did not give into the temptation to divide these two entities too sharply and as such had little problem with an issue such as this one.
But even in cases where the so-called secular government rushes in and works in opposition to the church, the kingdom of God is not defeated nor is the right of the church abrogated in teaching and enforcing legitimate understandings of what marriage means and how it should be practiced. And, the idea that clear biblical warrant is needed before such authority can be exercised is just unsupported from the nature of the case (in other words, there is no clear biblical warrant that you must have biblical warrant for these things).
While I don’t agree with the idea of a national council to handle these issues or a rush to judgment either, there are times when the church must work as the legitimate extension of our Lord’s Kingdom and transcend the nations and states of our day in reviewing and dealing with these issues.
I do think Pastor Meyers’ call for wisdom is appropriate and responses to our culture shouldn’t be exercised without it–but, at the end I believe Mike’s point still stands. The question ought not to be whether or not we have the authority or warrant in the church because clearly we do but really what is the best thing for us to do in handling these and other issues in our society.
When asking what the Lord requires of us in Micah, the prophet responded that we are “to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with [our] God”. More of that and this issue will work its way out on its own. Less and no council or action of the church will ever fix any problem we or others have.
Mike,
No sweat on the last sentence, I can see where the use of “sacrament” and “sacramental” to describe both cases can get a bit confusing.
Here are some things that, hopefully, can be stipulated in the discussion. Let me know if you disagree with any of the following, but I’ll assume that they are uncontroversial.
1) Since the coupling of human beings, the subsequent birth of progeny, the ordering of society to recognize the sexual exclusivity of a couples in particular, and the accounting for responsibilities (financial and otherwise) as it relates to progeny and parentage all precede the Resurrection and giving of the Spirit at Pentecost, one needs to contemplate marriage as has existed outside the distinctive community of the baptized.
2) Since all the above-referenced items continue to take place, with significant differentiation owing to accidents of history in each given culture’s self-construction, one needs to contemplate marriage as it exists outside the community of the baptized.
3) Whether one wishes to root the above two situations in a prior Reformed-style “covenant of creation” or in a Catholic-style Natural Law, the Church’s recognition of the general sacred character of the bond created is an authoritative interpretation of what exists by the natural order of creation. Again, as Leo XIII says, that sacred character “is not extraneous but innate” and applies equally to marriages contracted by Christians and non-Christians.
4) Because the sacred character of marriage is not extraneous but innate, its holiness is not dependent on its recognition as such by either the Church or the Civil Magistrate. Because God is witness to every exchange of marital promises (even when unrecognized or unregarded), its sacred character remains.
Since the church contemplates the reality of the above situations in human experience from a theological perspective, and yet has neither extended its Rite of Holy Matrimony to the unbaptized, nor moved to invalidate the marriages of unbaptized persons (we don’t, for example, see Christian converts like Priscilla and Aquilla being remarried after their baptism). In fact, it was not until the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century that the Church required the Rite of Holy Matrimony for a eccesial recognition of a valid marriage even between Christians.
Furthermore, the tradition among canonists usually distinguish between matrimonium in fieri (marriage in the act of being constituted) and martimonium in facto esse (marriage in the act of being lived out). That same tradition holds that matrimonium in fieri is constituted solely by the legitimate consent of the parties involved (public promise sealed by sexual consummation) and that where consent is given martimonium in facto esse is immediate. Although the public nature of the promise is almost always qualified by appeals to obey the laws of the land, it is instructive to note that laws are sometimes manifest as cultural mores. This was more true in pre-modern times, but you can see the difficulties inherent in cross-cultural translation.
Among the baptized, the general sacredness (or sacramentality) of marraige is elevated to the dignity of an official sacrament of the church (at least among Catholics, the Orthodox, and many Anglicans). The distinction and provision for licit and valid marriage among the unbaptized with appropriate sacredness attributable to that state, is what I want to argue for.
MJGP+
I think we are coming from two completely different phiosophical camps. I feel that quote from Leo is a bit foriegn to Roman teaching, but that is typical of Roman theology in general – you never really know when they are going to switch from Aristotle to Plato, for instance.
I’m not a fan of many “natural law” teachings, so I have a hard time considering much of what is railed against what Andrew has proposed.
Certainly, there is some kind of innate repsonse to the institution of marriage that God first gave to his elect people, but must we name it? Must we give credit were credit is not due. I think that when we do this, we create a sort of pantheism that belittles the nature of the Church.
The very way that God’s law works on the hearts of unbelievers is that it, yes, creates a sort of natural law within them. It creates a sort of stepping stone for the individual to move toward the real thing.
My argument is that natual law marriage is not the real thing…yet…but it is rather just natural law, a part of our society that is not to be recognized or ordained. It is invisible because for a reason. It could grow into “the real thing” or it could vanish into thin air and end up in eternal hell. Ordaining this natural law only gives false confidence.
Hope that all makes sense.
Mike,
RE: “I feel that quote from Leo is a bit foreign to Roman teaching.”
It’s hard to get to find something less foreign to Roman teaching than the basic paraphrasing of Canon Law (which is where the majority of the above stuff comes from).
The (Pope) Leo XIII quote is from his noteworthy 1880 Arcanum Encyclical on Christian Marriage.
MJGP+
Mike Spreng:
Here is a biblical argument for you.
In Gen 39 Joseph encounters Potiphar and his wife who were native Egyptians and presumably had not acknowledged that “that the institution itself is founded in God’s covenant people”. Yet Joseph clearly considers them married and the author uses the word “wife” rather than “concubine” or any of the less polite words for cohabiting people. We can conclude, I think, that God acknowledged this marriage as valid even though it was not contracted sacramentally nor among people of the covenant. Certainly Joseph did, who was the closest thing to a representative of the Church in the story.
It could be objected that Potiphar acknowledges the sovereignty of God in 39:3 so he might have had some knowledge of the covenant before marrying his wife. While logically possible I think such an argument strains plausibility.
If we need further examples we could look to Haman and his “wife” in Esther 5-6 who were certainly not friends of the covenant nor God-fearers in any sense. This is a somewhat less obvious example since nothing much is said about the validity of the relationship other than the fact that the author chose to use that term rather than another. Still, it does speak to a general acknowledgment that people are married if they intend to be and if societ treats them as such.
Getting back to Andrew’s original proposal: I think declaring marriages contracted outside the Church “null and void” is a mistake, both on the grounds of Biblical precedent noted above, as well as for the ecclesiastical reason that doing so has a vaguely Donatist or Anabaptist flavor. The state of marriage in the secular world is indeed deplorable but we cannot solve it by forcing those who have otherwise repented and turned to Christ to also be remarried before they partake of communion.
With regard to the specifi issue of gay “marriage”, such couples are publicly confessing participation in unrepented sin. Is it not obvious that 1) such a confession should bar them from communion and 2) repentance would necessarily entail dissolving the union? This seems to be a much more appropriate response to the issue as well as more practically achievable (assuming such people want communion in an orthodox church to begin with). But this is the same standard that is used for any unrepented sin, is it not?
RC,
First, the Hebrew word Ish-shaw is used interchangeably. It not only means wife but it also means woman. Nonetheless, the unbeliever’s woman is still his own. This would be were the natural law would comes in to play. Natural law needs to be respected but not endorsed or ordained. Joseph is neither endorsing nor ordaining Potiphar’s union. God sees the two people as adulterers since they are not living under his authority. We reject the gospel when we open ourselves to foreign authorities outside Christ’s body. But again, this does not mean we do not respect those authorities (see Romans 13).
These sorts of discussions do not seem to fall within the bounds of what I thought this blog exists for. Forgive me if I am being quick to judge or unecessarily negative but I actually do enjoy many of what happens here so I find it annoying when good minds are applied to dumb questions. It seems like an utter waste of our time. I know, no one is twisting my arm to read what happens here. I only bring it up because No matter how thoughtful the respondants might be posts like these will go nowhere (in my experience). That’s my two cents. I know no one asked for them.
I’m thankful to all those who have contributed thoughtfully to this discussion. Being interested in how our faith translates into actual practice, especially in how separated communions can cooperate together in testifying to the Truth, I raised the issue here at Evangelical Catholicity. We can talk all day about how we appreciate theologians and theologies of other traditions, but how do we actually practice ecumenicity?
In this regard I was especially moved by Kevin Johnson’s admonishment about how a national council of repentance should take precedence over a power struggle with the gay community.
Being a metaphysical realist when it comes to marriage, I agree with respondents that the Church cannot invalidate the natural ordinance. With Michael Pahls I want to maintain “the distinction and provision for licit and valid marriage among the unbaptized with appropriate sacredness attributable to that state.”
The implicit question I raised however, is, can there be a point where a particular expression of it becomes so corrupt the Church cannot in good conscience allow her members to be associated with it?
At the very least, there should be agreement among orthodox churches about how to handle marriage, divorce and re-marriage in our degraded cultural situation. Perhaps cooperation in these areas would lead to growth in a shared ecclesial life.
Fair enough, Andrew. I think my annoyance was probably more a response to the comments of Mike than your question. I still don’t think, as a conversation starter, that it was a good question but that’s just me. Obviously there are some things that need to be talked about. Your suggestion seemed at once impossible for all of the things that would have to change before it could be realized it would require (not necessarily a bad thing), and also too specific to contribute toward such a possibility becoming more realizable. Ecumenical discussions of the impossible scope you called for don’t usually begin with a list of specific proposals from a lone voice.
The more realistic way of addressing this problem of a changing culture is, to my mind, for all of us to start taking Church discipline very serious at the local level. Roman Catholics, Protestants and the mush of Evangelicalism have all failed to do follow God’s chastizing Word. But getting Protestants who practice no formal discipline to speak of together to refine a non-existant discipline seems backwards to me.
Andy
I commend you for posing this question. While, as other contributors have noted, we must acknowledge the providence of God viz. common-grace institutions (I realize some Reformed men prefer a different term than “common grace”) such that we must be very wary of an overly clericalized view of culture (ie., one which essentially posits the church as arbiter of marriage), the question nonetheless remains “How ought special revelation (Canon) speak to this very real and pressing iniquity.”
The fact that this is being discussed here is a great improvement over what to my horror, I have found from countless Deformed and Presbyterian Christians who pride themselves on the notion that ANY Word of God to the State is utterly inadmissable since such compromises their essentially schizoid theology.
It seems to me that within our “Reformed” circles, a great deal of wrestling must be done to move us past the triumphalistic and at times overly simplistic “T”heonomic hermeneutic on the one hand, as well as (more pertinently, present hour) the utterly feckless and anemic understanding of the faith that one finds trumpted by this or that member of the veritable confederacy of dunces within the average Reformed “discussion” group whose view of culture and the political order amounts to a kind of dispensationalist “well, you can’t polish brass on a sinking ship” ethos.
Marriage as common grace institution is a notion which enables, for example, my wife and I to be heavily involved with non-Christians such as Jews, non-Reformed Christians such as Catholics and Baptists viz. the National Organization for Marriage, which appears to have successfully garnered enough signatures to have the “gay marriage” ban on the ballot in November, something folks like the ACLU are scared to death about.
Of course, when I speak about this to some Presbyterian denominationalists, they seem to reflexively ask whether “the people involved are ’saved’”, and then, move on from there to obsess about this or that fellow Calvinist who doesn’t pronounce “shibboleth” to their liking.
So, keep up the good work brother.