Govt free marriages

[pittsflyer]

That would be a matter of church business.

OK many of our churches insist that a pastor, or a deacon, shall not be ordained if they have been divorced and since remarried; they cite scriptures saying a pastor or a deacon should be the husband of one wife.

In the light of your sanctioning of non-state related marriages, would you advise those churches to consider not only legal marriages, but also any past times when the candidate for pastor or deacon lived with a woman for a time prior to their current marriage? How many nights of staying with a woman would count as constituting a "marriage" that would disqualify a candidate for being a pastor or a deacon?

Churches with that idea don't consider how long ago the marriage was, or whether the candidate has repented and lived a life faithful to the current spouse. Merely the presence of the former marriage is enough to rule the candidate out.

So what do you suggest such a church do, as they interview candidates for pastoral or deacon ordination?

 

[sdmsanjose]

By Stealth
We both have more security and control over our own lives in this "Quaker Marriage", or "Covenant Marriage", than a Civil Marriage.

Your Quaker Marriage should also give you more assurance that your marriage is based on love. In addition, neither of you can hold the threat of a legal action over each other’s head by using a third party that cares nothing for the couple, is cold and indifferent, leaves God out of their authority, and takes authority over your personal life but cops out of much of the responsibility!

Congratulations Stealth you have improved your marriage situation!

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That would be a matter of church business.

Yes, but think of how many more candidates would be excluded from being considered for pastors or deacons! Therefore, in such churches, after they think about this problem, they're going to come down all for recognizing only officially government authorized marriages, and tell other couples living together they are living in sin.

Of course, they could be more reasonable and only count the current number of wives the candidates have . . . then they could find qualified candidates easily regardless of the definition of marriage.

 

[sdmsanjose]

According to Ernest L. Martin, Ph.D., the Old and New Testament marriages had no connection to the civil government (see partial reprint of article by Ernest L. Martin.
Ernest L. Martin, Ph.D is in the Wikipedia referenced in the link below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_L._Mar

Marriage, Divorce,
Living Together and the Bible
by Ernest L. Martin, Ph.D., 1987

Those of us who are affiliated with the Associates for Scriptural Knowledge would never dispute the relevancy of the marriage covenant as an essential principle that must always be maintained for a happy and productive society. Yet, in spite of these truths, there is no subject more misunderstood by Christians today. In this research study we will look at the topic in a basic way which can help us comprehend just what the Scripture teaches about marriage.
The first point that must be realized in studying the subject of marriage is just how little the Scripture reveals about the ceremonial aspects associated with it. Most people today place an importance on the marriage ceremony and the marriage "vows" that the couple make before witnesses. Yet in the Bible there is not the slightest instruction about the need for any marriage ceremonies (other than a marriage supper). There is such a paucity of information in the Scripture on such matters that one wonders whether our modern society has placed too much emphasis on the ceremonial aspect of the marriage relationship.

In the Old and New Testaments there was only one ceremony that signified the consummation of a marriage. That was the marriage supper (or dinner). If a couple wished to marry in biblical days, the parents of the couple would simply send out invitations to friends and relatives to attend the marriage supper. After the supper was over, the couple were considered by society as being married. There were no vows taken. There were no ceremonies in which a minister or priest officiated. There were no legal documents required by the government to consummate a marriage and the validity of the marriage was not acknowledged legally beyond the witness of the local "elders of the gate" within the village or city in which the couple lived. The synagogue or church had nothing to do with it. Indeed, the contract of marriage was legally in force only between the parents of both the man and woman getting married and the married couple themselves. Simply put, the legal responsibility went no further than the local community of the couple. It was not expected that the state or national governments had any jurisdiction concerning the marriage whatever!

The primary legal basis for marriage within the Holy Scriptures shows that it represented a covenant. It is not difficult to comprehend what a covenant is if one will pay close attention to the meaning of the word. In modern language a "covenant" is simply a "contract." In regard to the marriage covenant (or "contract"), it is usually an agreement made between a man and a woman to live with one another in close, intimate circumstances which includes the experience of sexual relations between the couple. The agreement itself is usually a public confirmation of a covenant/contract established between a particular man and woman to live in holy matrimony. In biblical times the parents of the bride and groom usually made the contract between themselves. The contract may have had nothing to do with the emotional desires of the couple being married. Hardly ever were emotional considerations of the young couple the prime factors for their marriage.


The main parties to most marriage covenants in ancient times were the parents of the bride and groom. This was the case throughout the whole of the biblical period, including that of the New Testament itself (see I Corinthians7:38 for confirmation of this). In any event, it should be recognized by biblical students (and those wishing to abide by the principles of the scriptural revelation) that marriage in biblical times was more a legal agreement between the parents of a young man and woman than an emotional and independent covenant made by the young couple themselves. It is important to recognize this point if one is to appreciate what marriage is as it pertains to the scriptural revelation.


What represented a marriage before the fourth century of our era? The fundamental principle that governed all marriages in biblical times was that they were all covenants -- they were all acknowledged as being contracts (Prov.2:17; Mal.2:14). If moderns understood this concept (and if they wish to abide by the principles of those who wrote the Bible), then almost all problems (both theological and secular) which have arisen in peoples' minds over what constitutes a marriage would disappear. Common sense and scriptural understanding would return to the issue and all people could have a proper appraisal of what embodies the essential features governing the marriage relationship. For emphasis' sake (and in this crucial matter emphasis is needed), let me say again that a biblical marriage represented a contract. It was a contract/covenant between a woman and a man or between two families that enabled the couple being married to become (in the eyes of the covenant-makers and society) "one flesh" (Gen.2:24; Matt.19:5,6).


Link to article is below
Marriage, Divorce, Living Together and the Bible

 

[DZoolander]

To be honest, though, what does being a "biblical" marriage really have to do with the issue though? The state isn't attempting to be biblical - nor should it. The state is attempting to assure the average greatest good in the event of dissolution.

 

[Stealth001]

Those legal resources were not because he was in the military--military counsel will not touch divorce.

I know. From my understanding, it was more like advice and hooking him up with the right attorneys.

 

[Stealth001]

Yeah - I can see where you're coming from on that - and why you take the stance you do. If my divorce had been anything like that - my feelings might be different.

So - how do you handle things in a practical sense right now? Do you currently have a true division of all of your property? Separate bank accounts, nothing jointly owned, etc? No co-mingling? What's mine is mine and understood to be mine, same as for what's yours?

We do have separate bank accounts. We've thought about opening one up that we can share, but really money hasn't been that big of an issue. Yes, we respect one another's property and affects.

 

[RDKirk]

To be honest, though, what does being a "biblical" marriage really have to do with the issue though? The state isn't attempting to be biblical - nor should it. The state is attempting to assure the average greatest good in the event of dissolution.

Explaining the social context of marriage in which the New Testament was written is in answer to those Christians in America who insist on government intervention in the process.

The marriage covenant as presumed by scripture would be a detailed pre-nuptial agreement today, and would be enforced by the government under contract law. Any issues arriving from dissolution not referenced in the agreement would be addressed by the court in the say way courts address issues under contract law that are not referenced in the contract.

IOW, as news to Christians in America, the government is already doing it wrong, if they want to apply biblical principles to it.

 

[Stealth001]

OK many of our churches insist that a pastor, or a deacon, shall not be ordained if they have been divorced and since remarried; they cite scriptures saying a pastor or a deacon should be the husband of one wife.

In the light of your sanctioning of non-state related marriages, would you advise those churches to consider not only legal marriages, but also any past times when the candidate for pastor or deacon lived with a woman for a time prior to their current marriage? How many nights of staying with a woman would count as constituting a "marriage" that would disqualify a candidate for being a pastor or a deacon?

Churches with that idea don't consider how long ago the marriage was, or whether the candidate has repented and lived a life faithful to the current spouse. Merely the presence of the former marriage is enough to rule the candidate out.

So what do you suggest such a church do, as they interview candidates for pastoral or deacon ordination?

I would say that if the couple held themselves out as being "married" it counts as a marriage. Rings are the token of the covenant. Did they wear wedding bands? Did they sign the family Bible as husband and wife? I think churches should keep a registry of husbands and wives.

Now, of course if one takes the interpretation of being "the husband of one wife" that you mention, then this could require some more in depth questioning.

However, it might simply mean what it says. He must presently be the husband of one wife. Remember, some Jews during that time were still practicing polygamy. Also, the term "husband of one wife" can be translated, "man of one woman". Thus it becomes a question of present monogamy at the time of consideration for leadership.

I don't believe that divorced people are "husbands of multiple wives".

 

[RDKirk]

I would say that if the couple held themselves out as being "married" it counts as a marriage. Rings are the token of the covenant. Did they wear wedding bands? Did they sign the family Bible as husband and wife? I think churches should keep a registry of husbands and wives.

Now, of course if one takes the interpretation of being "the husband of one wife" that you mention, then this could require some more in depth questioning.

However, it might simply mean what it says. He must presently be the husband of one wife. Remember, some Jews during that time were still practicing polygamy. Also, the term "husband of one wife" can be translated, "man of one woman". Thus it becomes a question of present monogamy at the time of consideration for leadership.

I don't believe that divorced people are "husbands of multiple wives".

Timothy was not operating among Jews, but among Graeco-Romans, and Roman law prohibited polygamy. Nor was polygamy still common among Jews.

If the marriage occurred while the prospective deacon and his then-wife declared themselves Christian, then the 1 Corinthians 7 "no divorce between Christians" command applies. The only out would be if the wife abandoned him and remarried herself, in which case the presumption would have to be that she wasn't really a Christian, but was really a pagan all along.

A couple "shacking up" represents a situation a congregation needs to hash out. IMO from my reading of scripture, God doesn't care about whether a county clerk has signed off on a government form.

 

[Stealth001]

To be honest, though, what does being a "biblical" marriage really have to do with the issue though? The state isn't attempting to be biblical - nor should it. The state is attempting to assure the average greatest good in the event of dissolution.

Seeing that marriage was originally a contract, breaking the contract came with penalties... even the death penalty for adultery. Marriage isn't about "greatest good in the event of dissolution". It's about justice.

 

[DZoolander]

I guess that's where the state's perspective differs. Their idea is "You move on with your life, they move on with theirs. What general set of rules will most likely facilitate that most equitably for the greatest number?" - with the understanding that in some cases on the extremes - yeah - some people might get screwed.

But - generally in life - things are like the old school bell curve. There are a few hideous examples on both ends of the spectrum - but the vast majority is just sorta there. Nothing too horrible, but nothing good. The rules are meant to service that largest group.

 

[pittsflyer]

In order to move on with my life I cant be financially entangled with an ex. That is opposite the very definition of "moving on". And the "some people" that get screwed are almost always men.

I guess that's where the state's perspective differs. Their idea is "You move on with your life, they move on with theirs. What general set of rules will most likely facilitate that most equitably for the greatest number?" - with the understanding that in some cases on the extremes - yeah - some people might get screwed.

But - generally in life - things are like the old school bell curve. There are a few hideous examples on both ends of the spectrum - but the vast majority is just sorta there. Nothing too horrible, but nothing good. The rules are meant to service that largest group.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I would say that if the couple held themselves out as being "married" it counts as a marriage. Rings are the token of the covenant. Did they wear wedding bands? Did they sign the family Bible as husband and wife? I think churches should keep a registry of husbands and wives.

Now, of course if one takes the interpretation of being "the husband of one wife" that you mention, then this could require some more in depth questioning.

However, it might simply mean what it says. He must presently be the husband of one wife. Remember, some Jews during that time were still practicing polygamy. Also, the term "husband of one wife" can be translated, "man of one woman". Thus it becomes a question of present monogamy at the time of consideration for leadership.

I don't believe that divorced people are "husbands of multiple wives".

I agree with your stance there, but I want to let those of the other opinion to be aware of the issue of living with someone as if husband and wife.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

In order to move on with my life I cant be financially entangled with an ex. That is opposite the very definition of "moving on". And the "some people" that get screwed are almost always men.

Women get screwed too. Especially in other cultures!

 

[Dionysiou]

govt free for sure. Lookout for yourselves as men.

 

[Mayzoo]

It appears most here have no issue with the government being involved in their relationship since they are fine with going to all the legal footwork to ensure a room-mate has the same rights as a spouse. What they want is a government free divorce. That is a totally different question all together.

A pre-nuptual agreement would solve the majority of concerns I have read here, and it would take much less legal footwork than trying to make your room-mate have the same legal rights a spouse does. It is pre-planning for the demise of the marriage, but that really seems to be the concern here.

 

[Mayzoo]

Well, that's how it's *supposed* to work theoretically. In my case when I went through a divorce (since we didn't have children) - that's pretty much how it went. Everything that was mine prior to the marriage stayed mine. Anything that we acquired during our marriage was split.

Where it might get a little more complicated - is say the guy owned a home prior to getting married. At the time of marriage, the home was worth $125,000. At the time of divorce - the home was worth $525,000 (using easy numbers here). The $400,000 appreciation in price occurred during the time of marriage, so that $400,000 is considered community property and ought be split 50/50.

That's the only place where it really gets a little more complicated. Fortunately, in my marriage, it was pretty easy to figure out. Anything of substantive value was purchased after we got married.

I actually don't know anyone that's ever had to pay alimony. Then again, most of the couples I know they both career people, and make roughly the same ballpark of money. So it could be that my sample group is bad.

Child support is also a weird one to me. I've got a friend that receives child support from her baby-daddy - and the amount she gets is total crap. It's something like $300/mo. Then I looked up what I would owe in child support (when we had one child) - and the calculators said that I would owe something like $2500/mo. Now I know that I earn more than this other schmo does - but not THAT much more. Not like 800% more. So, I dunno how exactly he gets away with paying $300/mo when the state calculator says I'd be owing over $2k a month.

That part is confusing to me.

In my state, the child support calculator is only used if the couple does not agree on an amount. My best friend got a no fault divorce (no adultery, no shenanigans) about a year ago after 21 years of marriage. The hubby was primary earner during about 30% of the marriage, and they were close to equal earners the rest the time.

The agreement they reached? He kept the house, all the equity (10 years), and the 401K and he does not have to pay any child support. She is not responsible for the mortgage from then on out and they split the monthly bills up to that point. She left with a few pieces of furniture that were her mother's (two or three items since she had to move in with her dad, she had no where to put more), her clothes, personal effects, and several hundred dollars. They had no jewelry to speak of other than fairly simple wedding rings which they each kept. They had no real savings at this time. My friend had primary custody of the one underage child, and he had visitation when the child wanted to see him (15 years old). He maintained medical insurance on the child and paid the child's cell phone bill. The mom paid for copays etc of medical care as it became needed for the child. No alimony.

They both agreed to this and they both were "happy" with it. They paid around 200-300 each for the divorce, each paying for their own lawyer, and she paid the actually filing fee.

Around here, it is more about what is agreed upon if the two parties can agree. If the two parties cannot agree then the state steps in.

 

[Stealth001]

It appears most here have no issue with the government being involved in their relationship since they are fine with going to all the legal footwork to ensure a room-mate has the same rights as a spouse. What they want is a government free divorce. That is a totally different question all together.

A pre-nuptual agreement would solve the majority of concerns I have read here, and it would take much less legal footwork than trying to make your room-mate have the same legal rights a spouse does. It is pre-planning for the demise of the marriage, but that really seems to be the concern here.

Courts throw pre-nupts out all the time. Not reliable.

 

[Stealth001]

In my state, the child support calculator is only used if the couple does not agree on an amount. My best friend got a no fault divorce (no adultery, no shenanigans) about a year ago after 21 years of marriage. The hubby was primary earner during about 30% of the marriage, and they were close to equal earners the rest the time.

The agreement they reached? He kept the house, all the equity (10 years), and the 401K and he does not have to pay any child support. She is not responsible for the mortgage from then on out and they split the monthly bills up to that point. She left with a few pieces of furniture that were her mother's (two or three items since she had to move in with her dad, she had no where to put more), her clothes, personal effects, and several hundred dollars. They had no jewelry to speak of other than fairly simple wedding rings which they each kept. They had no real savings at this time. My friend had primary custody of the one underage child, and he had visitation when the child wanted to see him (15 years old). He maintained medical insurance on the child and paid the child's cell phone bill. The mom paid for copays etc of medical care as it became needed for the child. No alimony.

They both agreed to this and they both were "happy" with it. They paid around 200-300 each for the divorce, each paying for their own lawyer, and she paid the actually filing fee.

Around here, it is more about what is agreed upon if the two parties can agree. If the two parties cannot agree then the state steps in.

Yes, it would be nice if people could agree. But 9 out of 10 times they don't. At least in my experience.