Married... but not.

Karl, hopefully today I will have time to send something to you, but I would ask 'what constitutes marriage Biblically?' In another thread a book was mentioned, "God, Marriage, and Family." I picked it up shortly thereafter for about 10$ with shipping. It has a fairly decent chapter on this subject starting on pg 81. (You can read that chapter online through google books) Otherwise, here is his definition of marriage

Also, I would go back to Genesis 2:24-25 and work through that passage with the couple and come to a conclusion from that. And at that, I will stop and hopefully PM you later with my completed thought.

No, in fact they are just what you described, divorce. Now, they answered to the Lord and no one else for their decision therefore I hope it is not taken as a "judgment" against them on my part, that isn't the point. Unusual conditions may call for exceptional decisions at times and I am not saying this is one that does or does not qualify, again that is not the point. In this case their life before God in this context is what they have to answer to but as to their being married before God, no they are not.

I guess that depends on national or local law. I know many other countries require all marriages be performed first by the state and, if desired, afterward solemnized according to religious custom.

Regardless, unless we assume a hypothetical country where the government never inquires into marital status (e.g., taxes, census), the couple referred to in the OP will always be engaging in an act of deception. That is, even if you assume the legitimacy of the church marriage, they are holding themselves out to the state to be unmarried.

I understand the desire for both the services and for marriage, but Christianity doesn't seem to allow this sort of pragmatism.

Government is a divine institution and marriage is a divine institution given for all people everywhere. Marriage nor government are uniquely Christian, they are applicable to all men everywhere. Where government sets a standard to recognized a marriage as legal or binding, the believer is obligated to observe and obey that requirement. They are not free to disregard the divine mechanism for social order and humanity's perpetuity, there is nothing honorable about that.

So, if a believer finds some illumination from God going on in their life in a context where they are in opposition to a rather clear protocol of God, it should never be read as God's validation of their insubordination in that area, rather a display of his mercy and grace that in spite of man's state where at no point can he say he obeys God on all matters (no matter how faithful you believe yourself to be), our Lord nevertheless graciously brings us along in our walk and does not deny us illumination.

But even more significantly is the mishandling of the divine institutions and the unfortunately apparent unfamiliarity that so many believers have with them (yes I know I have another post owned to Dan and it is forthcoming). First, marriage is not a Christian institution nor should it be viewed as a proprietary (the property of) feature of the church. That is to say, the church has no claim on making a marriage valid per the Bible. In fact, if a church pretends they are superior to the state in this matter or imagines they even have any such authority in this matter and attempts to usurp the authority of the state (an authority, by the way, which has been granted to the state/government by God himself,) they become a participant in a certain form of anarchy and unrighteous disobedience that is not sanctioned by God.

Marriage is for all people everywhere, Christian and non-Christian as designed by God, this cannot be repeated enough. What makes a marriage valid is not a church ceremony, otherwise no marriage outside a church is valid. Ceremonies in a church are made valid because the parties involved has taken care of the proper licensing for recognition by the state for a legal (and legal is s divine mechanism via government) status. And understand, when God ordained government as a divine institution for humanity's perpetuity, it is no light thing to say what is legal by government, what is made valid by their licensing is meaningless to God. This is a rather contrary position in which one places themselves because government is the very mechanism, the very institution God himself ordained to deal with these very matters and establish, recognize and enforce boundaries.

The protocol for marriage is established within the nation of which you reside. The only place we are given license to not acquiesce to government is where the state attempts to force us to disobey God and at that point the state is out of bounds and without any authority (though we may suffer for it) and we are free to follow our conscience before God in such matters. In the case being described above there is no place where the government appears to be attempting to force anyone to disobey God.

I have already alluded to several doctrinal topics which seem to be absent in any recognition by you of doctrinal or biblical references. While every statement uttered is not posted with a Scripture address by me, it appears none of yours are peppered as well. Instead there seems to be an understanding of some elementary doctrinal concepts being assumed as recognized and understood and only need topical reference, hence I followed suit. But to give you more than the hen I will give you some eggs.

Yes, there is Scripture to support this position, *firstly, the doctrine of ecclesiology. As we learn in the doctrine of ecclesiology regarding its instruction within orthodox Protestantism and even Baptist fundamentalism, it specifically teaches the divine structure, authority and limits of the church and one of those specific limits is the recognition of the divine institution of government which is ordained by God for civil regulation while the church is ordained for the preservation and propagation of the gospel to the unsaved the the dissemination of Bible doctrines and spiritual Shepherding for believers. That is to say more basically, civil issues are ruled upon and regulated by the God ordained institution created for that function, government and ecclesiastical issues are ruled upon and regulated by the God ordained institution created for that function during the church age, namely the church (which by the way is where the concept of separation of church and government finds some proper exercise).

*Secondly, the doctrine of divine institutions and more specifically the doctrine of government as revealed throughout Scripture in its varying dispensations and the divine protocol of it scope and function among humanity. Marriage being a divine institution of a "civil order" is properly subject to the divine mechanism intended for its regulation, government.

(*In the matter of posting specific Scripture addresses for the entire bible doctrines of ecclesiology, divine institutions and government it is rather impractical. If you are unfamiliar with any or all of these as a doctrinal topic then tell me and I will probably say our ability to discuss the matter will be limited to where we are now seeing you would be without an adequate frame of reference for proper development. However, if you are familiar with these then it should be understandable that you know the references and the doctrines and need not have me list the specific Scriptures. Now, if you believe that any of these doctrines teach otherwise, meaning other than what I have stated regarding our topic, show me where the dispute exists.)

I have already addressed this and since you may have missed it, I gladly will repost it:

I do find a bit troubling though your pursuit seems to not be lending itself to recognizing the weight of arguments contrary to that of the status of these people to which you refer. While it might be you recognize you are not settled, you did simply not reply to a rather forceful portion of my argument which does release one too conveniently if they are weighing this matter. Tell me Karl, how do you respond to this which I stated earlier? What is your argument, specifically against it?:

They are of course more than a civil contract, they are divinely recognized whether the parties know that or not and they are also a personal contract based upon personal integrity, not providential circumstances. The words "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" are as special class and condition devised by God for the divine institution of marriage, a phenomenon which occurs in all marriages, again whether one is a believer or a non-believer and whether they are cognizant of it or not.

To you anyway, to many teachers of systematic theology from whom I have drawn my response, it is not just sensible but quite doctrinal.

On the contrary, government was given to man by God as one of the divine institutions for humanity's perpetuity and is in fact the observable institution specifically intended for civil regulation and rule.

Your anarchical posture for marriage has often been published and soundly rejected by steady hands upon proper scrutiny. From a distance it appears noble, this taking a wife and she acquiescing and you both by-passing the social order of recognition and the divine institution God created for such proprietary functions and "doing your thing" in the name of God, love and "cleavology". But ignoring what God has placed as the institution for order and rule that you may make your own and justify it with a scant use of God's Word is perilous to say the least.

I don't really have chapter/verse for this, but I do think that there is validity for the necessity of civil marriage. It's so much dependent on the fabric of how a society works, even just considering practical things.

like, we couldn't get an american visa for my (now) husband until we had a legal marriage certificate.

i'm immigrating to ukraine now, and my golden key is our marriage certificate.

i help a lady who's also a foreigner here, and her password into getting her documents, legal status, and any type of social support is her marriage license.

i mean, at the very least, the legal license is probably the best protection fro a woman in many/most societies, since she is usually, in worst case scenario, left high and dry caring for the kids and not able to get a suffiently-paying job. The mariage license gives her certain legal rights that can be invaluable protection and provision for her. however, in a muslim country, for example, i'm not sure the same ideas hold true. also, it may not be true in the welfare system of the U.S. for example, and single women might use childbearing as a way to get govt support and cop out of marrital responsibilties.

I will acknowlege that i am just talking pragmatics here, which is actually the heart of the question of this thread b/c in this case, just the opposite pragmatics is true. The legal marriage ends the govt help b/c it presumes the husband will be sufficient to meet the need.

look at it this way: they seem to sense the need to be legally married, but they are trusting in the government to pay her medical needs. So, is God using the government to provide for them? is He arranging for their non-legally-married status as a means to provide for them?

well . . . . i seriously doubt that. but let's suppose it's in the realm of possibility. seems like in one way, the couple really wants to be married, legally.

So maybe i would approach it more from not how the Bible/God views marriage, per se. But approach it more from the angle of trusting God. is God giving them the desire to be legally married and asking them to trust Him to provide for them? They need to seek that answer themselves. I don't think God will lead them wrong. And then it will become more clear in their own hearts if God wants/requires legal marriage for them.