Should the Church be involved in having marriage defined as God ordained it or not?

[Yeshua1]

Should we publish articles/books, make videos, speak out from pulpits, stating with vigor that the ONLY marriage way is between a man and a Woman then?

Or should we not be mixing 'church and state?"

 

[Zaac]

Should we publish articles/books, make videos, speak out from pulpits, stating with vigor that the ONLY marriage way is between a man and a Woman then?

Or should we not be mixing 'church and state?"

Why is this even a question to ask? Has not the word of God addressed what marriage is? Then preach the Word!!!
Ain't nobody worried about the state.

 

[JonC]

Should we publish articles/books, make videos, speak out from pulpits, stating with vigor that the ONLY marriage way is between a man and a Woman then?

Or should we not be mixing 'church and state?"

Yes, we should speak out from our pulpits and Church media sound doctrine to the Church. I once thought that these issues were "common sense Christianity," but now I think my assumptions are a part of the attitude that fostered biblical illiteracy in our congregations (my ignorance was part of the problem).

It is not mixing church and state because the pulpit is not a stage for the world. The only thing the Church has any business telling the world is the truth of the gospel.

 

[Zaac]

Yes, we should speak out from our pulpits and Church media sound doctrine to the Church. I once thought that these issues were "common sense Christianity," but now I think my assumptions are a part of the attitude that fostered biblical illiteracy in our congregations (my ignorance was part of the problem).

It is not mixing church and state because the pulpit is not a stage for the world. The only thing the Church has any business telling the world is the truth of the gospel.

AMEN!!! And if the state doesn't like it, they'll have to lock me up or hang me from a tree just as they did with Christ. But I'm gonna preach the 100%, absolutely true word of God given by His inspiration until He says come on home.

 

[blessedwife318]

Should we publish articles/books, make videos, speak out from pulpits, stating with vigor that the ONLY marriage way is between a man and a Woman then?

Or should we not be mixing 'church and state?"

Well considering it was the State that pushed their way into the church business of marriage with license in the early 1900s. The state needs to get out of the churches business. Marriage has always been and will always be just between man and women no matter what the states trys to say.

 

[just-want-peace]

Should we publish articles/books, make videos, speak out from pulpits, stating with vigor that the ONLY marriage way is between a man and a Woman then?

Or should we not be mixing 'church and state?"

Only if you want to be biblical; otherwise "what difference does it make?" :thumbsup:

 

[quantumfaith]

Well considering it was the State that pushed their way into the church business of marriage with license in the early 1900s. The state needs to get out of the churches business. Marriage has always been and will always be just between man and women no matter what the states trys to say.

BW, I have recently been considering this position and I am with you. I think I could support the Gov getting out of the marriage business and simply have the role of the mediator in civil issues. "Marriage" relegated to "churches". Churches then classify and define marriage as they see it....of course it would not change much other than semantics for our culture.

 

[Salty]

The big issues is for taxes - ie filing jointly......

Also, for government service - especially when being sent overseas - the government only pays for your legal spouse......

 

[blackbird]

Why is this even a question to ask? Has not the word of God addressed what marriage is? Then preach the Word!!!
Ain't nobody worried about the state.

AAAAAAAAAAAMEN, Brother!!!!

:type::type::type:

 

[righteousdude2]

Should we publish articles/books, make videos, speak out from pulpits, stating with vigor that the ONLY marriage way is between a man and a Woman then?

Or should we not be mixing 'church and state?"

If you are coming from the Biblical World View of marriage (one man and one woman) and values, then the answer to your question from me is a RESOUNDING "Yes!" :applause::applause::applause:

 

[Rolfe]

Why is this even a question to ask? Has not the word of God addressed what marriage is? Then preach the Word!!!
Ain't nobody worried about the state.

Yep.:thumbs:

Scripture speaks on the subject, and if the Church is to remain true to it, it should too.

"Church and State" separation is a concept designed by men, not a principle set by Scripture.

 

[Aaron]

Should we publish articles/books, make videos, speak out from pulpits, stating with vigor that the ONLY marriage way is between a man and a Woman then?

Or should we not be mixing 'church and state?"

There is no such thing as separation of church and state, and the marriage question proves that. The man and woman joined in marriage is the basic unit of society, and the law of marriage is the institution that prescribes how men and women and children are to relate to one another.

The civil magistrates are the ministers of God, for the administration of law.

 

[Baptist Believer]

"Church and State" separation is a concept designed by men, not a principle set by Scripture.

"Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." - Jesus (Mark 12:17 and Matthew 22:21)

"My Kingdom is not of this world" - Jesus (John 18:36)

Jesus did not come and advocate a political movement to promote, teach or enforce His teachings. The Kingdom (rule) of God is not a human invention, nor can be manipulated by humanity. We are called to be citizens of the Kingdom (rule) of God and the secular corollary which fits very nicely with New Testament principles calls for true religious liberty which is politically realized through separation of church and state. That is a Christian principle - specifically a Baptists principle - that began to take hold during the Radical Reformation.

It is though a Baptist understanding of the scriptures that the doctrine of separation of church and state developed and eventually found its expression in the laws of government. The only US colony to be founded by a Baptist was Rhode Island, and it had separation of church and state written into its founding documents. Eventually the founders realized what a good idea it was (taught and prodded by Baptists) and it became the law in Virginia and a few years later became the First Amendment to the Constitution.

 

[Aaron]

Well considering it was the State that pushed their way into the church business of marriage with license in the early 1900s. The state needs to get out of the churches business. Marriage has always been and will always be just between man and women no matter what the states trys to say.

That's not necessarily true. The states have a vested interest in the institution of marriage, and all its laws have their roots therein.

The license is not the state's doorway into marriage. Marriage is the foundation of all civil law, and the state can and must protect and maintain the institution, and render justice in the instances a marriage is broken. A license has nothing whatever to do with that. The objection most folks have to a marriage license is the effect of making the state a third party in a marriage contract.

 

[Aaron]

"Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." - Jesus (Mark 12:17 and Matthew 22:21)

"My Kingdom is not of this world" - Jesus (John 18:36)

Just pointing out that BB believes separation of church and state to be a biblical doctrine, and that government should be set up that way. IOW, he believes a proper government is biblical.

 

[Baptist Believer]

That's not necessarily true. The states have a vested interest in the institution of marriage, and all its laws have their roots therein.

Marriage is good for the social order and stable relationships, areas that both the church and the state agree are good.

The license is not the state's doorway into marriage. Marriage is the foundation of all civil law, and the state can and must protect and maintain the institution, and render justice in the instances a marriage is broken.

Marriage will stand or fall with or without the state's assistance/guidance. However the state has the responsibility to administer justice and to settle disputes - including divorces - fairly.

The objection most folks have to a marriage license is the effect of making the state a third party in a marriage contract.

And that's a valid concern. Historically - in the Western tradition - the state has recognized marriage. The Roman Catholic Church - the social glue that held Europe together after the collapse of the Roman Empire administered the "sacrament"/grace of marriage. But those who did not want to be a part of the Roman Catholic Church did not have the benefits of that arrangement, so a "secular" method of marriage was developed. As property rights, the rights of women, issues with custody of children and other issues developed, the laws around marriage became more and more complex, so much that the the state began significantly regulated marriage.

In the zeal to stop gay marriage with the so-called "Defense of Marriage" legislation, those who oppose gay marriage actually made it inevitable by setting up clear legal precedents that the state has the right to legislate who and who cannot be legally married. Since those who experience same sex attraction are also fully citizens and share in the rights all citizens share, they can now be legally permitted to marry. To be blunt, it is just a matter of time before it hits the Supreme Court and becomes the law of the land.

I pointed this out to a bunch of "Defense of Marriage" zealots many years ago, but they apparently had such a short view of history and were caught up in the excitement of "doing something" that they did exactly the wrong thing to do if you are opposed to gay marriage.

In my opinion, the Supreme Court should throw out most of the regulations on marriage and create the category of civil unions. If one wants to be married, you can go to a church, religious or secular institution to do a marriage. However, to have legal status with your union, you much register your union with the government. That won't prevent "gay marriage," but it insulates churches from legal issues regarding discrimination against those whom the church cannot marry.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Just pointing out that BB believes separation of church and state to be a biblical doctrine, and that government should be set up that way. IOW, he believes a proper government is biblical.

Proper government is a blessing from God. (Romans 13:1-7)

However, I'm not sure why my views are being called out here.

 

[quantumfaith]

Marriage is good for the social order and stable relationships, areas that both the church and the state agree are good.


Marriage will stand or fall with or without the state's assistance/guidance. However the state has the responsibility to administer justice and to settle disputes - including divorces - fairly.


And that's a valid concern. Historically - in the Western tradition - the state has recognized marriage. The Roman Catholic Church - the social glue that held Europe together after the collapse of the Roman Empire administered the "sacrament"/grace of marriage. But those who did not want to be a part of the Roman Catholic Church did not have the benefits of that arrangement, so a "secular" method of marriage was developed. As property rights, the rights of women, issues with custody of children and other issues developed, the laws around marriage became more and more complex, so much that the the state began significantly regulated marriage.

In the zeal to stop gay marriage with the so-called "Defense of Marriage" legislation, those who oppose gay marriage actually made it inevitable by setting up clear legal precedents that the state has the right to legislate who and who cannot be legally married. Since those who experience same sex attraction are also fully citizens and share in the rights all citizens share, they can now be legally permitted to marry. To be blunt, it is just a matter of time before it hits the Supreme Court and becomes the law of the land.

I pointed this out to a bunch of "Defense of Marriage" zealots many years ago, but they apparently had such a short view of history and were caught up in the excitement of "doing something" that they did exactly the wrong thing to do if you are opposed to gay marriage.

In my opinion, the Supreme Court should throw out most of the regulations on marriage and create the category of civil unions. If one wants to be married, you can go to a church, religious or secular institution to do a marriage. However, to have legal status with your union, you much register your union with the government. That won't prevent "gay marriage," but it insulates churches from legal issues regarding discrimination against those whom the church cannot marry.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Crabtownboy]

Should we publish articles/books, make videos, speak out from pulpits, stating with vigor that the ONLY marriage way is between a man and a Woman then?

Or should we not be mixing 'church and state?"

Can you show me where polygamy is prohibited in the Bible?

Don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of polygamy, but I am not sure you can build a case as laid out above from the Bible.

Exod. 21:10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.

Deut. 21:15-17 15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.

David and Solomon certainly had more than one wife.

Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines

 

[Baptist Believer]

Can you show me where polygamy is prohibited in the Bible?{/quote]
If you are looking for a "Thou shalt not..." then I think you're out of luck. However, the Genesis 2 story specifies that the two shall become one flesh. Not three, not eleven, but two.

Jesus reaffirmed this ideal in the New Testament when there was a question regarding divorce. He portrays the man who divorces his wife, without cause, to marry another as committing adultery. The idea is that he is not being faithful to his first wife when he takes a second wife. While the topic of conversation is not polygamy, it seems to assume one man and one woman in marriage as the original intent.

In the New Testament letters, the offices of bishop/elder and deacon are limited to those who only have one spouse. There are legitimate questions regarding whether or not a divorced and remarried person can be an elder or deacon, but one thing is clear - you cannot be a polygamist.

David and Solomon certainly had more than one wife.

David had a lot of problems with power, sexual desire and a low view of the value of human life. If you read the life story of David (not just the bits that get taught in Sunday School class and in inspiring sermons), you will see that he had issues with women and also had quite a bit of trouble in his household as a result of his lusts and rivalries created by multiple wives and their children.

Solomon had similar problems.

I think the Bible is rather clear that it is not the ideal and is discouraged in the New Testament era, unless you were already a polygamist when you came to faith in Christ.