Category: Marriage/ Divorce/ Remarriage

C.S. Lewis on marriage governed by the State and marriage governed by the Church.

C.S. Lewis and his wife, Joy Davidman.

Yesterday I proposed that we should make a distinction between civil unions recognized by the State (for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike) and marriage, something to be offered by churches, synagogues, mosques, and other visible religious institutions in  ”A commonsense solution on same-sex marriage.” It appears that C.S. Lewis held to a similar paradigm. In a comment Ellen Cressman provided a quotation from Lewis’ Mere Christianity (p. 112 in the 2001 Harper San Francisco printing):

“Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question-how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mahommedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.”

Now, let me be clear, I don’t agree with everything Lewis says in this chapter on “Christian Marriage,” especially his words immediately following on “headship” in the home. (Also, excuse his outdated reference to Muslims as “Mohommedans.”) Yet here I think he was on to something way back in 1952. Christians must be very, very careful about equating morality as governed by the Church with morality as governed by the State. We know this already, for as I mentioned yesterday we do not legislate divorce, even divorce save porneia, so we must be aware of the dangers of trying to use the State to do what even the Holy Spirit seems unable to do sometimes–hold together our marriages.

Now I know one reaction (and it was exhibited in the comments) is that if we move marriage away from the hands of the State, allowing them to provide a religious-less “civil union,” then we risk opening the floodgates to polygamy and all other sorts of “unions.” Fair enough, but at that we must ask what the State has to do with marriage/civil unions in the first place. I am not a historian of world culture, nor of marriage, but I assume that it has not always been so that the State dictated how marriage worked or determined who could or could not join together in a union. Christian marriage has existed with or without the approval and support of the State, so it was not the State that birthed Christian marriage.

We must ask what interest does the State have in governing the affairs of unions. Does the State care if you are married to one spouse but have sex with twenty? No, you cannot go to jail for adultery. Does the State prevent this form of polygamy? No, it does not. The State’s interest has to do with organization. There must be something about the particularity of small partnerships (whether or not sex is involved) that interest the governing powers.  So if Reverend, Pastor So-and-So cannot sign on behalf of the government does that mean suddenly the government will want to provide civil unions of one man and twelve women? I don’t know, but I think that complicates things for the State and moves away from the reason the State likes having its voice in our marriage rituals.

That said, do I care if nine people share assets or if their partnerships result in tax breaks? I’m not sure that I do. Again, the State’s actions are not concerned with morality or the imagery that Christian marriage attempts to present. The State is concerned with organization and control.

Now I am not saying that Christians shouldn’t vote with their religious convictions as motivation. I think our convictions should motivate us to participate in our “democracy” in ways that makes life a little better for the poor, the immigrant, the widow, and a little harder on the oppressor, the murderer, the abuser, and so forth. But as I said above, we realize that at times some things should not or cannot be legislated–maybe unions resulting in hospital visitation rights, tax bracketing, asset sharing, and child custody is not one of those things? Maybe Lewis is right that Christians must live out a very particular vision of marriage, not asking the State to control it. Maybe we should focus on our own marriages and actually doing marriage the Christian way before we spend time demanding that the perks of the State be given only to those who are “married” in the eyes of the State.

A commonsense solution on same-sex marriage?

What if there is a win-win approach to settling the debate over same-sex marriage?

Bob Hyatt, Tony Campolo, Kurt Willems, and others have advocated a “common sense solution” to the debate over same-sex marriage, but are evangelicals listening?

As I mentioned yesterday (see “Stanley Hauerwas destroyed my hermeneutical paradigm.”) I am perplexed by the unspoken methodology with which Christians approach addressing the matter of the legalization of same-sex marriage. I think most Christians use the logic of (A) Scripture forbids homosexuality + (B) same-sex marriage (SSM) affirms homosexuality = therefore, (C) we should vote against same sex marriage. There are more complex, well-argued versions of this, but most Christians don’t seem to have given adequate attention to formulating their reasoning for their views.

Last year Kurt Willems wrote a satirical piece asking Christians to sign his petition banning divorce (see “Sign My Petition for a Constitutional Amendment to Ban Divorce!”) that strikes at the heart of the problem I have with evangelical jargon on this subject. We use language regarding something being “biblical,” therefore we determine what should be “legal,” but we are inconsistent, especially regarding sexual ethics. Most of us would not want a constitutional amendment to ban divorce, even if Jesus gave very little wiggle-room on this matter. Why do we want people to have the freedom to divorce legally when divorce stands in opposition to a Christian understanding of marriage? While someone may ignore Willems’ post as being too tongue-in-cheek there remains an unanswered question: “On what premise do we fight against same sex marriage in the courts, but not against divorce?”

Today Bob Hyatt–pastor of the Evergreen Community here in Portland, OR–wrote a fine short piece titled, “Last Chance for a Win-Win on Same Sex Marriage” wherein he presented a view I share on this matter (a view that Tony Jones alluded to as a “common sense solution”). He wrote,

On one side, the Church is going to have to realize that gay men and women, in wanting what everyone else has, are asking for something reasonable. Rights of inheritance and property, custody and visitation- all of the rights granted currently by the state in marriage are good things, things we can affirm, even in relationships that we wouldn’t necessarily endorse. After all, even if we hold a more conservative view on divorce, I don’t see many churches advocating for divorced couples to lose the right to have custody over their step-children should something happen to their spouse. We may not endorse the relationship, but we can certainly try to understand the desire of those in it to have the same legal rights as other couples. And more than understand it- I think we can advocate for it, and practically demonstrate that we do in fact “love everyone.”

Then he acknowledged the deep sacramental and religious significance the word “marriage” holds for Christians:

On the other side, those pushing for SSM need to understand the depth of feeling involved in and around the word marriage- what is for many Christians a sacrament and for all Christians sacred. To have the State legislate an understanding of what is essentially a religious term, and to legislate it in a way contrary to the faith and practice of so many is profoundly offensive. This goes beyond legalization into the realm of endorsement and definition, and as such, is qualitatively different than many other culture war issues.

Then he provided his solution:

The State needs to get out of the “marriage” business. It should recognize that as long as it uses that term, and continues to privilege certain types of relationships over others this issue is going to divide us as a nation, and is only going to become more and more contentious. We need to move towards the system used in many European countries where the State issues nothing but civil unions to anyone who wants them, and then those who desire it may seek a marriage from the Church. When I pastored in the Netherlands, this was the system- you got a civil union certificate at the courthouse and then a Marriage ceremony at the church. This division largely negated the culture war aspect, and allowed those churches who objected to same sex marriage on biblical grounds to not only opt out, but to be able to continue to teach their biblical view of marriage, uncontradicted by the State.

I recommend reading the whole article. That this approach is being use elsewhere, successfully, ought to peak our interest. Sadly, I think many on both side are blinded by their desire to “win” this debate. There are Christians who think marriage is compromised unless the state reflects their views on the matter. There are others who think the “fundamentalist” win if they settle for anything short of the use of the word “marriage.” But if the heart of the matter is found in Hyatt’s first paragraph–that homosexuals want equal rights when it comes to sharing property that is their’s, or custody over children they raised together, or various tax benefits, then this isn’t about whether we say “civil unions” or “marriage.”

Let us leave “marriage” to the churches, synagogues, and mosques and the civil unions to the state.

If someone finds a religious body who will acknowledge same sex “marriage” then let that be a difference between various religious bodies, not a difference of civil standing in a pluralistic nation.

Two years of marriage!

On August 1st, 2009, I married Miranda Jane Perez in San Francisco, CA. It was a brilliant decision on my end and a graceful one of her’s! She has made me a better person in every way and I am sure she may be the only one in the world who could put up with my antics. I am so grateful for her, for our relationship, and for these last two years.

In our vows we said, “until death do us part.” It is amazing to think that we’ve only begun that journey. If the Lord wills that we live to be old we may repeat this trip many, many more times. As I observe how our relationship has evolved in two years I wonder what it will be like in twenty years, or forty years, or more! We are best friends now and I can’t imagine life without her. What will it be like to have decades of history together? All those memories, victories, defeats, trips and travel, and maybe even children? I look forward to the adventure ahead.

What do I know about marriage after two years? Very little. I am no expert. Some days I think I’m a good husband, other days I think I am mediocre, other days I think I am terrible. But I do know that the moments that solidify my commitment to my wife are those times when we laugh together. It is usually about an inside joke or something only we share. It is code for “you make me happy and these are the times when you do that in a way only you can”.

After two years I realize my wife is more beautiful than a realized, more intelligent, more dedicated, more motivated, more talented, stronger, and more loyal than I understood when I said “I do”. And that is part of that promise: We commit to someone we have yet to really discover. It is the discovery of the other than makes marriage so much fun (and challenging)!

Miranda, I love you! Thank you for marrying me two years ago and for being part of the best time of my life. I anticipate many, many, many more years together. There is no one else who knows me like you do. You are my best friend, lover, confidant, and the one who makes me smile. You’re amazing. You’re funny. You’re beautiful.

Happy Second Anniversary!

Is there responsibility in witnessing wedding vows?

If we witness the formation of a covenant should we witness against its violators?

Divorce is ugly. Sometimes it is inevitable whether or not it is excusable. Sometimes there is sexual infidelity, physical abuse, or something similar that causes irrevocable destruction. My parents are divorced. One set of my grandparents are divorced. My wife’s parents are divorced. I know it is common, yet I think we are sometimes too accommodating.

Many wedding vows mention that there are “witnesses” present. We are witnesses before a forming covenant between two people. These people pledge in front of us that they will remain together until they die. They say things like “for better or worse” and “for richer or poorer” and “in sickness and in health”. We are the legal guardians of this contract if ever put into dispute.

Yet I wonder how many of us have attended a wedding, played the role of witness, then heard this or that couple was contemplating divorce. Often we think, “Oh, that is sad.” We don’t think they should do it, but we excuse ourselves saying, “They are adults. It is their lives.”

Wait. Why did we attend their wedding? Did we go to the ceremony like we go to a movie theater? Is it some form of entertainment with a reception to follow?

I thought we were playing the role of potential jurors. When one party breaks the contract we are there to declare a violation has taken place. Do we ever do this?

Thus far I have not been to any weddings where the couple has decided to move toward divorce. I hope that this is ever the case I will have the guts to point out the covenant violation. Yes, marriage is between a man and a woman, but it is also in front of the community before their eyes as well as the eyes of God. It is a covenant we witness. I think we are obligated to take this role seriously, but sadly I don’t think we do.

What do you think? What is our role as witnesses to a marriage covenant when its existence is threatened by divorce? Would you challenge the offending couple?

“Before God and These Witnesses”: Accountability for a Bride and Groom?

I attended a wedding ceremony where I heard the presiding pastor use these words in the vows that the bride and groom were to repeat: “I vow, before God and these witnesses…”. This led to a list of things both people promised to each other.

As I heard this it crossed my mind for the first time that I am one of those witnesses and my participation in this ceremony is a promise to be a reminder to the bride and groom of these vows. I wonder how many of us realize this? Even more important, do any of us act it out?

I wonder if this couple has trouble down the road, and God-forbid I heard a divorce was being planned, if I would call to challenge this decision, remind the couple that I was a witness to their vows. Does anyone do this anymore? I would sure hope so but I don’t know. Maybe it has become a mere formality.

Distinguishing Christian and Civil Weddings

When the citizens of California voted in favor of Proposition 8 it was only a matter of time before this would be overturned. At that time I told many people that I think it is a waste of our time to fight over this issue as Christians. As much as many Christians do not want to hear this it seems to me that this is a fight that the traditionalist will not win. In my opinion it is not even something with which we should waste our time. Why use aggression when we can use subversion?

Why do we waste thousands upon millions of dollars trying to preserve something that we are going to see disappear if not in this generation for sure by the next one? The church has not been called to save society. We are to be an alternative society. If the state allows abortion this does not change whether or not we as Christians should accept it as moral. I think the same should be said about same-gender marriages.

In Europe there is a distinction between religious and civil weddings. Many pastors in the United States want to preserve their role as ambassadors of the state in the act of marriage. This is not useful. As I told so many several months ago we should resolve to live as the church rather than trying to make the state the church.

As a Christian I see nothing wrong with going to the courthouse or city hall to do a civil ceremony prior to going to the church for a ceremony/sacrament before God and the people of God. The civil is for the benefits given by our nation to married people. The religious is for the commitment vowed between a man and his wife, God, and fellow believers.

I am glad to see that there are many who think this way including D.A. Carson! In a recent article on The Gospel Coalition Blog four pastors were asked by Collin Hanson whether or not we should begin considering separating Christian and civil weddings. Three said that this is likely the way to go; one said we cannot separate Christian and civil weddings. I agree with the three against the one.

As I understand it the judge ruled that churches do not have to honor civil marriages. Even if the day comes when this is about to change all we have to do is continue to perform marriages like communion or our worship gatherings. We do not have to submit these ceremonies to state authority. We do not have to let culture define things for us. We do not have to waste our time fighting an endless war. We have only been called to be the people of God. We have not been called to ask all of society to behave like we are to behave.

On a final note, we as Christians have a lot problems that need to be addressed as relates to marriage that we should give our attention toward. For one, our own high rate of divorce and infidelity. It is my opinion that if this changed it would be more of a witness to an unbelieving world that if we marched out of a court house with a judge ruling in our favor.

One Year Ago Today

One year ago today in San Francisco, CA, I married my best friend. It was one of the best decisions I have ever made. There is no one else in the world with which I’d rather spend the rest of my days.

In our first year we have learned the ups and downs, the likes and dislikes, and the art of compromise. We have discovered what makes the other laugh. We have our own inside jokes. We can spend a day hiking around Mt. Tabor in Portland or sitting in our living room watching rented movies. Marriage is wonderful.

Marriage is sanctification (as I have heard it said). You learn a lot about yourself–especially your weaknesses. You learn to say “sorry”. Over time you hope to become a little less selfish/self-centered. You begin to understand the imagery of Christ and his Bride, the church. Likewise, you begin to realize how much grace is needed to love like Christ loves. You realize you have been called to a higher standard of dedication, fidelity, and loyalty than the world around you.

There is always someone there to talk to about all things holy and profane. It may not be academic but there is always a discussion that can be classified as theological, Christological, ecclesiological, eschatological, and so forth. In marriage you become the church together in order to better be part of the church local, and global.

Marriage is a celebration. We celebrate the beauty of the other, the gift of being made in the image of God–both male and female, the differences, the similarities. You celebrate the past: family history, family mystery, victories, and failures. You dream of the future: place of residence (to call “home”), education, employment, children, family, and legacy.

Marriage is a commitment. It is the promise to be in it until the end (and by “end” you mean death). It is sobering as you realize many don’t last. It is challenging as you promise to be a couple that does. It helps you forgive your parents who did not because you realize how easy two people can move apart if you don’t work at staying close. It makes you vow to be the parents who are always together so that your children always have a place called “home”.

My life with Miranda is infinitely better than life before her. She is the love of my life, my whole life, each day. I thank God for her and I thank her for helping me learn more about God.

Discussing Interracial Marriage

I have not been married for even one year and I am already on a panel for a class discussing marriage, particularly interracial marriage. I assume this has something to do with my availability rather than my expertise but it should be interesting. For those who are not aware my wife is Latina/Hispanic (Mexican) and I am of European (French) descent. I guess this makes me an “authority” on the subject!

This is the short list of questions that my wife and I will be asked: Basic info—how long have you been married, how did you meet, et cetra.

Was ethnicity ever a consideration for either of you as you were dating?  Deciding to get married?

  1. Basic info—how long have you been married, how did you meet, etc.
  2. Was ethnicity ever a consideration for either of you as you were dating?  Deciding to get married?
  3. How important is the ethnicity/ culture in which you were raised?  How has that manifested itself in your marriage?
  4. What aspects of culture might you consider as you think about expanding your family.
  5. What experiences or family history left an impact on you as being culturally important?
  6. What would you want someone to know who is interested in learning more about cross cultural marriages?

It should make for an interesting discussion. What are your thoughts on interracial marriage? Are you married to someone of another race/culture? If not, what do you imagine the greatest challenges to be? If so, what have been the greatest challenges?

Is Marriage Bliss? No, Marriage is Sanctification

Is marriage bliss? No, bliss is fantasy. It is what thrill seekers alway need yet never find. It is what makes hallucinogens appealing to some people. It is charismatic experience in and of itself. It does not make you who God intends on making you.

Before I was married I heard someone, somewhere say, “Marriage is sanctification”. I think there was a book written on this subject that was being discussed. Although I was not part of the conversation, nor can I remember who said it, I kept that saying. After being married for a little over six months I am beginning to understand it. It is not as scary as it sounds. Actually, it is as beautiful and amazing as I suspected it might be when I heard it.

God sanctifies us through marriage by putting two people–like sharp, jagged pieces of glass–next to each other so that the consistent nearness wears away those edges of selfishness, narcissism, self-consciousness, false idealism, anger, and other vices. As we begin to live less for ourselves as individuals, and more for ourselves as two people in a life long covenant, we begin to see an evolution that I do not think can take place alone.

Yesterday my wife and I observed Ash Wednesday together. For both of us, who were raised Pentecostal, we were taught by our parents that this is a “Catholic thing” (not that I have any problem with that). We decided it is more than a distinctive of Catholicism or some forms of Protestantism. It is an ancient tradition that connects us with believers before us. We are excited about embarking on a Lent journey, together, toward Easter Sunday. This is an experience that we are sharing together. We are learning what it means to be Christians as a couple. We are discussing what is important to us; what is essential to our religion.

Can marriage be tough? Sure! All good things are tough. This should not scare us. Neither should the idea of being sanctified. The Holy Spirit makes us into the image of Christ who is the image of God. In marriage we have the opportunity to mature in a way that can be a model to the world around us of the love of Christ for his church and his church for him.

Do some marriages fail? Of course, but this is no reason to betray this beautiful institution and rite. In fact, it should motivate us even more to fight for its survival. We cannot let culture dictate to us what it means to be loyal to a covenant. We must let that comes from God alone. When we hear the Word of God on this matter we realize that we said, “Until death do us part” and as much as is within our ability and strength we must maintain this public confession.

I am finding marriage to be even better than I thought it would be. No, it is not bliss. It is sanctification. It is the means by which God continues to change me into the person I am to become. And I get to do this next to someone I love. When we think of it this way, I’d rather have sanctification than bliss any day.

I Get Married a Week from Today!

I will be getting married August 1st, 2009. I am not nervous yet. I expect that I will be soon.

This week I not only will be preparing for a wedding, but I will be preparing for a move. Miranda and I will be moving to Portland, OR, after our honeymoon. I think this is where my nervous energy has gone. I am worried about everything going smoothly for our transition north. Maybe this is a good thing since it has helped me keep from panicking about the biggest day of my life!

Big Day Countdown: Two Weeks Until I Get Married

With two weeks to go I am now officially beginning to feel a bit stressed. Oddly enough it is not so much about the wedding. I feel that the ceremony and surrounding events will be fine. It is the move to Portland, OR, after we return from our honeymoon that has got me a bit worried. Neither of us have jobs lined up yet. Pray for us!

Today is a day of wedding related chores. First to San Jose, CA, to do a few things there. Then we gather with some friends later today to celebrate the forthcoming wedding. No rest for the weary!

Leave and Cleave: To What Extent?


In Genesis 2:24 the narrator writes that the story of the first man and the first woman coming together is a model for how a man should leave his mother and father, cleave to his wife, and become one flesh. Tomorrow my younger brother is getting married. I am getting married in August. I am wondering to what extent should one “leave” behind their family nucleus?

There are some who make the mistake of simply merging their spouse into their family as an equal while not making the spouse a priority. There are others who forget they ever had a family of origin. For those who are already married, how did you find the balance if you did?

The "Exception Clause" in Matthew 19:9

I have been writing a short paper on the biblical passages related to divorce and remarriage for one of my classes. Until now I was somewhat unaware of the debate regarding the syntax of Matthew 19:9 as it relates to the exception clause. I know that the definition of πορνείᾳ (“sexual immorality/adultery”) has been debated for sometime now, but I did not know that some debate whether or not the phrase μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ (“except because of sexual immorality/adultery”) applies to the whole statement or only the first part.

These are the two views:

(1) μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ applies only to the first statement by Jesus ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ (“anyone who sends away/divorces his wife”). This would mean that anyone who divorces his wife is guilty of μοιχᾶται (“adultery”), unless the divorce is because their spouse was sexually unfaithful. It would further mean that remarriage is always μοιχᾶται.

(2) μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ applies to both the first and second statements by Jesus; it applies to both ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ and καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται (“and married another commits adultry”). This would mean that anyone who divorces his wife and remarries, unless the divorce was justified on the basis of πορνείᾳ, is guilty of adultery.

I was surprised to read in a couple of sources that opinion one was the near unanimous reading of the church for the first five centuries! Is there anyone out there who has studied this verse as relates to the “exception clause”? Is there anyone out there who has read any arguments on how the Greek functions here?