16 July 2009
Marriage: State vs Church
I honestly think the church needs to take back marriage from the state. This harmonizing of two is what has now got the country up in a stir about gay "marriage". If the church were to take back marriage that would leave the state with civil union. So under this proposal a Christian couple would have to go through two stages, one with the state (civil union: legal in state, probably just some paper work) and the second in the church (the actual marriage). This would solve the gay "marriage" issue because then the church's ceremony would not be legally binding in the state only in the eyes of God which I believe is the way it was meant to be leaving the gay couple to be legally civilly united(?) in the state. Just to be clear to be legally "married" now would be called civilly united, you would have to go to the court house and fill out paperwork and have the justice declare you civilly united and then to be married in the eyes of God you would still have the church ceremony. The major problem I see with this is having to change terminology. Non Christian couples would no longer be called married but civilly united (or something to that effect) no matter their genders whereas Christians married in the church would maintain the married label. (please comment, but keep them civil this is for discussion purposes, if you disagree be civil about it, I will reply if need be)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
But this opens a whole new can of worms...who can participate in a Christian Marriage? Can a believer and a non believer be married, or only civilly united? Can a marriage be dissolved, or just the civil union? What if a couple is civilly united and then become believers...do they have to have another service in order to be recognized in the eyes of God? I think in trying to appease the masses we would only cause further confusion.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting idea. Honestly, I don't ever see it happening. I do agree that the church should take back marriage. I just think that this would cause a lot of problems among people. First, Christians might not want to have to go through 2 processes in order to be married in the eyes of God. I don't know if I would. I also don't think it would be right to tell non-Christian couples that they are not technically "married" because it was not before God. There have already been so many controversies and protests from gay couples who want to be married. They, along with non-Christians, would be likely to feel segregated further by not being allowed the actual label of "married". I would. Something should happen, but I don't know if this is the best way to go about it. I know that you can't please everbody, but this would make a much larger group of the population angry.
ReplyDeleteAshley Trainer
I'd love to leave a fuller comment (busy at the moment), but let me just say I think you are right on target. Let the state handle civil unions for tax purposes and paperwork. But the church should handle the mystery and doctrine of Marriage. It's a good plan, but sadly it would never fly. The terminology we use is too entrenched in our language. But let's keep at it.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments, I agree the terminology would be the hardest part to change. We already have to go to the courthouse to fill paper work, it just now would be the official state recognition. I did not think about the implications of who then would be able to receive Christian marriage, however most churches do require some sort counseling to get married there already so I would imagine it would only increase this practice and the requirements might become more strict. Again this solution would not be perfect but our current system does not seem to be the best. Again thanks for the comments. If you have any revelations please feel free to comment again.
ReplyDelete