Kristie and I are married. We have the certificate to prove it. The state says we are married and so I believe it. So does my church. So do my church friends. We even wear wedding rings. We also tell people we are married. We have it all. We made our vows thirteen years ago and we are husband and wife.
I have performed the marriage ceremony for dozens of couples. I know the ropes. I have performed them at churches, chapels, by lakes, in a law office, and even on my back porch (twice!). There are some key ingredients I require. 1) A man and a woman. 2) A witness. 3) Vows with specific promises. 4) A marriage certificate. Once the man and woman are present, numbers 2 and 3 are easy for me to wing. However, I can’t do the certificate. The couple has to. It is an issue of the state.
One time I married a couple and forgot to put my “book” and “page” number on the certificate. Another time, we forgot the certificate all-together and had to sign it later in the week (I think after the honeymoon). Were they married? I timidly told the excited (but very nervous) couple not to worry about it. I explained that it was their commitment to each other between God and men that made them united in marriage in God’s sight. They were free to do what married couples do. They were relieved to say the least.
But was I right? How much say does the state really have in whether a couple is married or not? Conversely, how much say do they have if a couple is divorced?
There is no place in the Bible that speaks about the rules for getting married. Believe me, I have looked. No ceremony instructions. No mention of government regulations. No suggested vows. Nothing about a ring, a church, a white dress, a tux, or even someone to preside over the ceremony. The Bible seems to give much freedom to individuals and cultures to mandate these things as they will.
But what really makes two people married?
Here are some options:
1. Living together in a symbiotic relationship (mutual dependence).
2. Sexual intimacy.
3. Making vows of commitment.
4. The state certificate.
5. Self identification as being married.
6. Pronouncement of an officiant.
7. Having children together.
Even the state has some problems with this. Most places have something called “common law” marriage. It is defined variously, but normally includes co-habitation for an undefined period of time and the couple must identify themselves publicly as being married. No ceremony is necessary. No pastor. And no vows. Again, the two things: 1) live together for an extended period, 2) say to others you are married.
My uncle, who is a Christian, is common law married. Has been for years. Though they have never had a ceremony (and don’t intend to) they live as husband and wife.
I would assume that we as Christians, seeing as how there are no specific biblical instructions here, would hold some things in much higher regard than others. I would say that it has to be between a man and a woman. There needs to be a recognition of the marriage internally. If the couple never has self-recognition of their marital status, that would be problematic. Many cultures would say that the marriage is not finalized until the act of sex. I am not sure about this, but if sex were never present (barring any physical reasons), then there would be problems as well. If they never cohabitate in mutual dependence, this would be somewhat of an issue. But I would say that the vows (often coldly defined as the “contract”) are the most essential. Without these, there would not, in my opinion, be a marriage.
There are two things that are not that important, though necessary for cultural state and church regulations.
First is the pronouncement. At the end of a wedding ceremony, I pronounce the couple to be married. This is what I say (picture me saying it!): “By the POWER vested in me by the state and as a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I now pronounce you man and wife.” Exhilarating! I rarely feel such control. I often pause mid-sentence to let the anticipation rise and allow the people dwell on the phrase “the power vested in me.” I like to think my pronouncement has some magical power. In reality, it does not. Were I to forget this, no biggie.
Second is the certificate. I am not suggesting that people start getting married without a certificate from the state, but I would say that it is one of the least important items. Who really cares if the government says you are married? Do they really have that much control? Of course there are all the protections, benefits, and tax issues that go along with this, but some certificate on file downtown does not really make me married.
However, interestingly enough, it is these two things that most of us look to when we are assessing the validity of a marriage. Did the pastor make the pronouncement and did your certificate get filed at the courthouse?
This, I must say is a very shallow view of what marriage is and completely discounts the centrality of the promise the couple makes to each other. I would say everything on the list is higher than the certificate.
You are married if you are living according to your vows. This will include faithfulness, love, commitment to the spouse, mutual care and concern, physical intimacy, recognition of the marriage, and forgiveness. It is living as one. When your spouse hurts, you hurt. When your spouse succeeds, you succeed. When you spouse falls, you are there to pick them up. You are living for each other the same way you live for yourself. If a marriage lacks these things, I don’t care how many certificates and pronouncements you have made, you are not really married.
It is like Christians who believe their status before God—their marriage to Christ—is based on when they walked the isle, got baptized, or joined this or that church. They may even have a certificate to prove it. But in the end, their status in Christ is ultimately based not on something they did, but something they do. Their status in Christ must not be a past tense trust (“I trusted in Christ in 1988!”), but a present day reality that is ongoing (though imperfect).
Being married is not something that you did, it is something that you do.
Having said this, I now bring up the question of divorce. When is a couple divorced?
I know of a couple in a terrible marriage. The woman has sought so desperately to have a marriage that is full of life the way God intended. The husband, on the other hand, has grown bored with the marriage. There is no sexual intimacy, no sharing, no emotional bond, and no relationship present at all. They barely even talk. The vows are being completely ignored by the husband. When they do talk, he is mentally abusive and dismissive of the concerns of the wife. After years of living in such a way, they would be best described as roommates rather than husband and wife. Now the wife is talking about divorce. The man thinks such talk is blasphemous. He is a Christian and will not suffer a divorce. The very mention of it caused the man to look down on his wife’s spirituality and bring it before the pastor of a church. The pastor then counsels the woman on how ungodly it is for her to even mention divorce. He commends the husband for “sticking with it.”
When I think about this situation, I ask myself ,”What is a divorce?” If everything that makes a marriage a marriage is being ignored, are they even married anymore? Haven’t they already gone through an “illegal divorce”? It is “illegal” only because the state does not recognize it. Maybe its a “common-law divorce” (though not recognized that I know of). Either way, isn’t it a divorce in every other way?
The church (and all of us in the church) are often more concerned about some paper downtown at the county clerk’s office than we are about the marriage. We are terrified of a divorce paper, but are very tolerant of “illegal divorces.” Why do we give such authority and credence to the state in these matters? What is so paramount about this piece of paper? Why is it that a pastor could punish the woman who simply wants to make legal what her husband has already done long ago? He divorced her and did not tell the state. It is that simple. And at the same time, the church rewards and protects the man who is responsible for the divorce because he is so “righteous” that he won’t go sign the papers. Nevertheless, he will abuse and neglect his wife, demoting the status of their relationship below that of friendship.
Though I am speaking outside of my areas (perhaps irresponsibly), I am coming to think that the deprivation of what makes two people married is the definition of divorce. I would hope the church would come down harder on the one who is neglecting the marriage than the one who seeks to have the state recognize what has already happened.
What do you think? I truly want to hear your thoughts and shape my understanding here.
85 replies to "What Makes Two People Married or Divorced?"
Canadian,
The vast majority of people on this site are Evangelical Protestants who do not recognize the authority of the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church on this or any other matter.
Canadian,
I’ve enjoyed the discussion with you. But I probably have no business getting too involved in it, because we are coming from very different places. I grew up in fundamentalism and have, in recent years, rejected the authority of the Bible and have become agnostic.
I guess my last comment would be that I truly can’t imagine most adults submitting to this stuff, although I’m sure some actually do. Also I see the Catholic church made up of mere men who have convinced people that they have some special power and special relationship with God. I don’t think they do have those things. Just like I don’t think Protestant “men of God” exists either.
I hope I haven’t offended you in these honest remarks. Thank you for the conversation. And I think no matter what group we’re in, it’s a good thing that we’re thinkig this stuff through.
But what I am interested in is coming under the teaching authority of the church that Christ established no matter where I find her, regardless of my own personal opinion
Canadian:
The self-made/self-asserted claims of both the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and the Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC) of being “the church that Christ established” are mutually exclusive vis-a-vis each other and are historically and Biblically and factually challengeable. For every argument the RCC puts forth as being that Church, the EOC has a counterargument, and vice-versa. One has to deliberately ignore or emphasize or de-emphasize some historical facts in order to swallow or accept all the claims these two bodies (or any body that claims to be that One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church) make for themselves. But as John Adams famously said: “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” (John Adams, ‘Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,’ December 1770) (Watch the HBO production of John Adams if you’ve never seen it.)
I’m not Catholic, but in a period of discernment regarding her claims.
We and my former godfather and his wife were once persuaded, after nearly 30 years of Protevangelicalism craziness, etc., to do this with respect to the EOC, but after 3 years, the facts and other things were just too stubborn to ignore, and we and my godfather and his family left that communion. Go ahead, investigate the Roman Catholic Church’s claims, and even go ahead and join it. But just don’t do so under the belief that it’s all that its apologists and defending converts/adherents claim for it, because it’s not. 🙂
This subject hits home for me as my parents are getting a divorce after 29 yrs of marriage. I will not go into the details since they are presently irrelevant to the specific subject being discussed (however the big issues might come out in order for me to state my thoughts).
I like a lot of what you said and if one were to concede to your assumptions about what marriage is then the opposite of that could be considered being divorced in practice (Also, given those things separation would be some sort of divorce). For all intensive purposes my parents lived together divorced for most of their marriage. My dad has been living in adultery since before their marriage. They had never been close since as long as I can remember. I never saw them exchange mutual forms of physical expression. I say mutual because my dad would try to kiss mom but she would never lovingly accept it or return it.
In talking through this with my pastor a thought came to my mind about divorce. My mom is the one who filed for the divorce papers and not my dad who is the adulterer. My dad believes that divorce is never right no matter what (he is an addict and is bipolar manic depressive just to start so I expect him to take this position as a controlling and abusive person. This was one way he kept her with him for so long – she thought she had no way out of it). He believes my mom is sinning by filing for the divorce. However, hasnt the current situation of my parents marriage been the result of his continued adultery such that they had been living together as if they were divorced? He broke their vows as a way of life.
That being said, it seems to me that the divorce papers are simply the states recognition of the reality my parents were already living – divorced.
Craig,
Your post made me feel very sad. I’m sorry your parents had a very lousy marriage. My parents’ marriage was always rocky, and they divorced after 19 years. I was already out of the house, but it was still a major event for me. I wish all families could consist of good marriages and good parents.
Lousy marriages can provide stability and keep financial disaster at bay, but they can still leave a lot to be desired.
Michael T#51
I understand and apologize if I have offended anyone. It’s just that we Protestants ultimately recognize no authority but our own interpretation of scripture. We find a church body that we agree with based on our interpretation and submit (sort of) until we disagree, of course. That is certainly not biblical authority.
Lynn,
I too came through fundamentalist leanings, as well as Pentecostal/charismatic, evangelical Baptist, Reformed Baptist, etc.
There is much confusion, often little love, and sin among us all. All I can say is that either the tomb was empty or it wasn’t. At the end of the day, history, scripture, tradition and reason lead me to cling to this God who stoops so low as to unite himself to us through his Son. Everything you long for is found in him. The creation points to him, the scripture points not to itself but to him, the faces of your children testify to him. Thanks for listening.
Eric #53
It’s facts that have me searching for the church before 1517. Fact’s about the canon itself; the fact that the scripture does not claim for itself sole authority or identify its own books; facts relating to the promises of Christ about the church and his leading and preserving it at all times, facts like why the church is from day one sacramental, liturgical, episcopal, heirarchical—all spoof-texting to show otherwise aside.
Thanks for sharing your EO experience. I attended off and on for 2 years as well. It’s not that I am looking for a church without sinners, but scripture calls schism and division sin, even damnable in Gal. 5.
We refuse to accept as protestants that there is such a sin.
There were too many “catholic” verses in scripture once I took my post enlightenment, biblicist, individualistic glasses off.
I think when we are really in a good marriage, as Christ defines it in relationship to Him and the church, whether it is a first or second one, we are not merely enduring,according to the law but really getting what it means to be truly one. I have been in both kinds of marriage and only now am I beginning to really get what God means about being truly one in Him.
Canadian,
No one was offended (or at least I wasn’t). I was simply pointing out that you’re appeal to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church was probably going to fall on deaf ears in this forum. If you were in a Catholic forum things would obviously be different.
As to you’re statement,
“It’s just that we Protestants ultimately recognize no authority but our own interpretation of scripture. We find a church body that we agree with based on our interpretation and submit (sort of) until we disagree, of course. That is certainly not biblical authority.”
I think this is a bit of an exaggeration. There are certainly cases where this is true, but generally it is the result of the rejection of Biblical authority. Those denominations which genuinely believe that the Bible is authoritative (as opposed to those which simply state that the believe it is so) rarely stray too far off the path of Historical Orthodoxy. Ultimately the reason I am an Evangelical is because Evangelicalism at an aspirational level (not always in practice) holds to the creed “Unity in Essentials, Liberty in Non-Essentials, and in all things Charity”. In other words where the Bible has spoken clearly we will remain unified and where it hasn’t we will allow for disagreement.
Now do we still fight and have disagreements….of course. Luther knew that this would happen when he started the Reformation. Yet to him and to me this is still preferable to a church which claims infallibility, yet has proven all too fallible. There are some powers humans aren’t meant to have and are simply a recipe for abuse.
Canadian,
“Thanks for sharing your EO experience. I attended off and on for 2 years as well. It’s not that I am looking for a church without sinners, but scripture calls schism and division sin, even damnable in Gal. 5.”
If you ask the EO they would claim that it was the RC that caused the division. The Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople mutually excommunicated one another. So who is causing division is a matter of perspective. Same thing for Luther in Protestantism. It can be argued that the RC caused division by preaching another Gospel.
Ultimately who is causing the schism and division is a matter of perspective. If there were only one true church I seen no reason why the Roman Catholic Churches claim to this would be any more valid then the EO or even Oriental Orthodox churches.
Michael,
Thanks for your responses. I would have much to say in response but in respect for the topic of the original post and this thread, I will say just one thing. If we actually claim unity in essentials (which is not the reality in protestantism at all) the real question is WHO determines what in fact is “essential” that can bind the conscience of all who would come after. If you say scripture you see that it fails in practice, not because of some defect in scripture but because every appeal to scripture is actually an appeal to an INTERPRETATION of scripture. That’s why we have fundamental disagreement and endless schism, heresy, division even over what is deemed essential. Someone (the church) must have the gift of Spirit led interpretive authority (see Acts 15). And if this ended when the last apostle died and God chucked down a book for everyone to disagree over, then all the promises of Christ have failed.
There were too many “catholic” verses in scripture once I took my post enlightenment, biblicist, individualistic glasses off.
And there were too many anti-RCC, anti-EOC verses in Scripture once I took my EOC/RCC-apologists’ glasses off and tried to reconcile some of the things they were saying, doing and teaching with Jesus and the Scriptures.
To each his or her own, I guess. It sounds like your mind is already made up, but you’ll have a tough time convincing any here at Parchment and Pen to cross the Tiber with you. You are just repeating by rote the same catch-phrases and arguments/statements many Internet Catholic Come-To-Rome apologists present to Evangelicals and others. But we’ve already read them and heard them ad infinitum ad nauseam.
May you have a happy life.
Canadian,
“If we actually claim unity in essentials (which is not the reality in protestantism at all) the real question is WHO determines what in fact is “essential” that can bind the conscience of all who would come after.”
Just two things,
1. Please distinguish Evangelicals which are a part of Protestantism from Protestantism in general. Mainline Protestants for instance largely reject in practice the concept that the Bible is the final authority. Fundamentalists on the other hand are pretty much like what you claim, interpreting everything for themselves and burning anyone who disagrees with their interpretation. Evangelicals are neither of these (at least in our aspirations).
2. As to who determines what these essentials are, the Gospel message itself determines those essentials. Funny thing is even Catholics believe in the same basic tenants of the Gospel message as Evangelicals, they just then proceed to heap tradition and regulations on top of it.
Michael T. wrote:
Funny thing is even Catholics believe in the same basic tenants of the Gospel message as Evangelicals, they just then proceed to heap tradition and regulations on top of it.
A couple weeks ago on a Catholic radio station, the host/speaker/priest/whatever said that “For Catholics, the Gospel is Christ in the Eucharist.”
I.e., when the priest confects the Eucharist and pronounces the words of institution, the bread and wine of the Eucharist become Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity. Jesus is thereby just as present in the Eucharist – “Christ in/among you, the hope of glory” (Col. 1:27) – as if He were to be standing there in person. Eucharistic Adoration confirms and displays this belief that in the Eucharist, the Catholic believer and the Catholic Church have Jesus Christ.
If so, then I’m not sure that Catholics and Evangelicals believe in the same basic tenets of the Gospel message. While Evangelicals believe that the Gospel comes down to Jesus Himself, and not just the message about Jesus and faith in Him (though they may often promote the message over the Person), Catholics have a different understanding and Tradition and way of believing that Jesus Himself is present to or comes to the believer, and vice-versa.
Per that radio broadcast, the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is central to Catholic faith and central to the Gospel according to Roman Catholicism. And I don’t think that Evangelicals have anything like the Catholic view of the Eucharist (which is intertwined with the views and understanding of the priesthood).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church may refute what the radio speaker said. Or maybe it doesn’t. Catholic radio, like Protestant Christian radio, sometimes speaks in distorted or simplified voices and says things that are wrongly nuanced or presented.
“But what really makes two people married?
Here are some Biblical Requirements to begin:
(1) Lawful entitlement (eligibility, commitment to restrictions)
(2) Public Commitment (vow before congregation)
(3) Parental Approval (essential)
(4) God’s Participation (being in the Big Plan)
Here are some Biblical Requirements to maintain it:
(1) Fidelity (carrying through on vow)
(2) Commitment to Community (upholding ALL marriages)
(3) Unity of mind and heart (in the Lord)
(4) Agreement to Authoritative Arrangments (leadership rules)
Not too complicated really.
Nazaroo
Eric #63
“the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is central to Catholic faith and central to the Gospel according to Roman Catholicism. And I don’t think that Evangelicals have anything like the Catholic view of the Eucharist”
1 Cor. 10 and 11 became so convincing to me even before I thought of Rome or Orthodoxy. Pauls use of “participation”, “not discerning the body”, “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” etc. The fact that there is judgement IN THE ACT of eating and drinking unworthily, they are said to EAT AND DRINK judgement to themselves. Also, if you understand the church’s incredible theology of the Incarnation, you then begin to understand that because of the union of Christ’s humanity to his divine Personhood that his flesh receives properties and capabilities not natural to it. Even before the resurrection, Christ’s flesh shone brighter than the sun. The memorial view did not show up until after the second generation of the Reformation.
Canadian 65.:
FWIW, I’ve extensively studied 1 Cor 10 & 11, in fact 1 Cor 8-14, many, many times in the original Greek, and have taught and preached on it. I suspect that there are others here who hold to a non-Catholic/non-Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist who have done the same.
At one time I, too, accepted or believed the Orthodox (close to Catholic) reading and understanding of those passages, as well as the reading/understanding of John 6. That was one reason I became Orthodox.
And as for the theology or doctrine of the Incarnation, I think the Orthodox might trump the Catholics in terms of richness and depth of teaching. 🙂
But as I began pressing those understandings of the Eucharist and those passages at certain points, they gave way, and the Catholic/Orthodox understanding and teaching of the Eucharist and the Lord’s Supper was no longer tenable or Scriptural. What the RCC and EOC teach and do is neither what Jesus taught and said and did and meant, nor what Paul meant in those chapters in 1 Cor.
Again, you’re just mouthing the same ad nauseam platitudes and apologetics that Catholic converts or soon-to-be converts say in forum after forum on the Internet or at places like the Coming Home Network. Your words fall on deaf ears here – or in my case, on ears that have not only heard and still hear these things, but have found they are unconvincing and just plain wrong.
Enjoy your baptism and/or chrismation and first Communion.
Michael T #62
First, distinguishing Evangelicals from other protestants only narrows the field of view to find the same problem. Then I need to distinguish Pentecostals, Baptists, Presby’s, Church of God, Alliance, etc, etc. What I think you were implying, is that all evangelicals believe in biblical authority, however this authority produces no unity, little agreement, reductionism, and eventually you may see (already begun I think) evangelicalism collapse in on itself as liberal protestantism has done. With no biblical interpretive authority, no sacramental and Christological foundation, no Conciliar home base, no principle of unity, and no biblical view of schism, collapse is inevitable.
Remember, the scriptures themselves do not claim to be the sole authority for doctrine or practice. The written word is the breath of the living Word himself, but this breath he breathed into the Church. They do not function apart from one another.
As to your comment about adding traditions to the gospel….hmmmmm. How about decisional regeneration, altar call, asking Jesus into your heart, using grape juice, divine absence in the Lord’s Supper etc, etc, etc.
Guys,
Thank you for interacting with this dysfunctional Baptist who is questioning our evangelical presuppositions 🙂
Michael Patton,
I am sorry for causing this thread to go off the rails. Ironically, divorce and remarriage is another reason I am looking at Rome’s claims right now. Thanks for your blog and the spirit with which you write.
Canadian,
I believe in looking to the authority of the historic Church in these matters as well, but you’re not going to find communion with it in any modern church. The Fathers would not have believed in annulment. Instead, we should look to what is consistent with their interpretations, being the one Church.
You ought also to make a distinction between Prots within the Radical Reformation and the Magisterial Reformation traditions. The former characterize the types of groups you mentioned belonging to in your ecclesiastical background. The latter take historic orthodoxy very seriously. Of course, we can all look at the lack of seriousness given to it by laymen and various clergy, but we can do the same within the RCC and EO traditions and come out thinking the same of them.
Remember that schism occurred because the RCC excommunicated Luther. He did not wish to depart from the communion, and many times argued that there was only one Church, but within lay the faithful and the heretics. Much of what you have described was held by the Reformers. Hence, they are not specifically RCC or Prot positions.
Finally, I would not divide the Church over the nature of something that is not described in Scripture. We are commanded to participate in the communion and remember Christ and proclaim His death til He comes. Whatever else we think it is belongs to speculation and medieval philosophy, not biblical interpretation. There is no Bible passage that describes to us what the Eucharist is. If anything, the RCC position misunderstands the rhetoric of language. It reminds of me of fundamentalists and cults thinking that there is something special about the blood of Christ literally when in fact “blood” is used as a metonymy in Scripture for death. These same mistakes are being made here.
But I digress, since this is way off topic.
“What I think you were implying, is that all evangelicals believe in biblical authority, however this authority produces no unity, little agreement, reductionism, and eventually you may see (already begun I think) evangelicalism collapse in on itself as liberal protestantism has done.”
Membership wise mainline Protestants and Evanglicals are pretty much treading water (see some charts posted a few weeks ago on this blog). It is in fact that Catholics who are bleeding members big time despite their magisterial authority.
As to unity I think you would be surprised at the amount of unity that exists among various Evangelical denominations. Sure it isn’t perfect, but in my town all of the Evangelical churches work together on local issues as well as some global matters. A couple times a year ecumenical services are held. In addition most Evangelical denominations belong to organizations such as the NAE and ETS. Simply because denominations disagree over minor matters does not mean that there is no unity or that those in one denomination do not consider those in the other brothers in Christ. I personally have attended churches from 4 different denominations at one point or another (GBC, EFCA, ECC, and CMA) and find little difference between them and enough unity among them for pastors from other denominations to be guest speakers on a regular basis.
Michael T said:
“It is in fact that Catholics who are bleeding members big time”
From what I can see, (the same with Orthodoxy) is that they should be bleeding off a lot more of them! 🙂
However, as we all know, the attraction to evangelicalism can often be the entertainment culture and fadism that pervades her. Admittedly, sometimes people just want Jesus and have not been swept to Christ in their Catholic/Orthodox environs because it is often purely cultural to be there. Regarding the authority of the Magisterium, it is often the case that Catholics just don’t want to follow the teaching of the church, so in good evangelical fashion they go elsewhere.
As to your comments about evangelical unity, I understand this. But at the end of the day, everything for the evangelical is optional. It doesn’t bother him because for him authority and tradition is looked on with great suspicion. There is no visible church (he was told) so why bother worrying about visible unity (except for that nagging prayer of Jesus in John 17, oh just forget about it, that must be in heaven). He moves around among different theological positions as he sees best from his reading of scripture or when he finds a better exegete. We breathe this kind of air because we were born into it, but the Christian church never operated this way. Luther and Calvin certainly didn’t as they sometimes cruelly enforced a unity they couldn’t maintain for long. Would to God some of the warm evangelical spirit was more evident in Rome/Constantinople but what you have said is not proof that this is the kind of unity Christ intended.
Pax Christi
1. “Regarding the authority of the Magisterium, it is often the case that Catholics just don’t want to follow the teaching of the church, so in good evangelical fashion they go elsewhere.”
Yet this is true with anything whether we are talking religious persuasions, political parties or what restaurant the family prefers. If you don’t believe what is being preached or don’t like what is being served you go elsewhere. As someone who went to a Catholic Law School (University of St. Thomas in MN) I find it amusing the number of Catholics who don’t believe the Catholic Church is right on everything and still call themselves Catholic.
2. “There is no visible church (he was told) so why bother worrying about visible unity (except for that nagging prayer of Jesus in John 17, oh just forget about it, that must be in heaven).”
I find just the opposite is true. From the perspective of the Magisterium if you disagree with the Catholic Church on any issue the Magisterium has spoken on (i.e. the assumption of Mary) you are not Catholic. In the Evangelical Church we openly allow for disagreement on the finer points of doctrine even within our denominations and regard those in other Evangelical denominations as brothers in Christ even if we disagree on some matters. Even in our most polarizing issues (i.e. Calvinism vs. Arminianism, Complementarianism vs. Egalitarianism, etc.) the opposing sides will generally acknowledge each others as brothers. This cannot occur in the Catholic Church.
3. As to issues of tradition and ecclesiology I acknowledge that in general the Evangelical Church is lacking and needs to improve. We should have a better understanding of and more respect for those who have come before us (there are many in Evangelicalism by the way working to improve this – CMP being one of them). Yet the fact that we aren’t perfect in this regard doesn’t to me undermine the idea and ideals of Evangelicalism. Just means there is room to…
Michael T,
Just a correction when you said:
“the opposing sides will generally acknowledge each others as brothers. This cannot occur in the Catholic Church.”
It is official teaching that protestants are “separated brothers” in communions that salvation occurs and baptism is valid. They are not in communion with the Catholic church in fullness but in a subsidiary and incomplete way.
Canadian,
The status of Protestants from the perspective of the Catholic Church is a matter of debate. One second were heretics damned to hell the next were separated brothers. One never quite knows what to think. CMP wrote about this here although it is not displaying for me correctly at the moment.
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/07/finally-a-catholic-who-is-not-afraid-to-condemn-me/
“man and wife”? Why not say “husband and woman”? Just kidding.
All,
Some have made comments earlier about easy annulment in the Catholic church. I found this short piece where Pope Benedict has directly admonished the church in this regard.
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=5294
Hodge #69,
You said: “but you’re not going to find communion with it in any modern church.”
Your’ve merely asserted this without any reasonable argument from history or scripture.
You said: “Whatever else we think it is belongs to speculation and medieval philosophy, not biblical interpretation.”
Medieval? Seriously? Aquinas may have attempted to explore in detail the eucharist but the early church was crudely accused by secular Romans of cannibalism regarding their secret eucharistic ceremony. The unanimous consent of Christianity until the second generation of the Reformation is Christ’s real presence in the elements.
You said: “There is no Bible passage that describes to us what the Eucharist is.”
1 Cor 10:16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
Then in the next couple verses, he warns that heathen worship is a participation spiritually with demons. It’s strange that protestants would accept Pauls view that heathen worship is demonically sacramental but Christian worship is only memorial. Note too in v.18 where “eating” is the participation of the altar, this coincides with Hebrews 13 where “we have an altar where they have no right to eat”.
Read 1 Cor. 11 carefully.
“This is my body” the context whenever these words are spoken in scripture is never metaphorical. Your assertion that these words and this chapter does not describe what the eucharist is seems problematic. Especially when you add to it the unanimous view of the ancient church. How about “guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord”.
46. Canadian on 30 Jul 2010 at 11:09 am #
…I’m not Catholic, but in a period of discernment regarding her claims.
Canadian:
From your posts here, it seems a bit disingenuous for you to say that you’re “in a period of discernment regarding [the Roman Catholic Church’s] claims.”
You appear to have already consumed large quantities of the Kool-Aid and are neck-deep in the Tiber. 🙂
Eric W,
I’d rather not bother with Rome or Orthodoxy. It would be easier to close my eyes and live the comfortable status quo. I may be up to my neck but protestant assertions that only amount to personal opinions that do not line up with history or scripture when pressed, have not persuaded me. The apologists like James White nearly always get their keester handed to them in serious debate with Catholics. They claim what they want to claim from the ancient church’s dogmatic formulations (Trinity, Incarnation, scriptural canon) while often asserting that very church was apostate and did not understand the gospel. So if in fact Jesus and the apostles were serving the same Kool-Aid, I can’t refuse just because I like soda better.
Canadian,
Please wait until Michael makes a post on this subject. You’ve highjacked it here. When he does, as someone who reads quite a bit of the Fathers, and even considers doing an advance degree in patristics at some point, I’d be happy to engage you on the subject.
Hodge,
We’ve kinda all hijacked the thread myself included lol, but you’re right we kinda gone way off topic.
However if everyone wanted to we could simply choose a post CMP has done on Catholicism in the past and move the discussion there since it is for the most part a good and constructive discussion.
“We’ve kinda all hijacked the thread myself included lol”
LOL. tu chez, Michael. 🙂
What Makes Two People Married…?
God’s grace and power.
…or divorced?
Their own sinfulness.
Great post
I have to say that I agree with everything. I have been really interested with topic ever since it has concerned me. I am an American living in a foreign country (and about to legally marry a national) so we must deal with immigration and it is very expensive. I did some research and we decided that the most important thing is your covenant between you, your spouse and God. I believe that the legal stuff can be dealt with after.
I before I actually found what I was looking for, I posted in a Christian forum, and they all believe that to be married in God’s eyes it must *first* be legal. After I did my research, I went back to the form, and they tore me apart. They said that we were liars and living in sin. Then they started giving me parenting advice because we have a daughter and we are living together without our marriage being legal. I just ending up closing my account there.
I hope that your post will open other’s eyes to what really makes a marriage.
I know it has been some time since anyone has posted here, but I thought I would put in my two cents. Recently I’ve been pondering these very things. I think for many marriage isn’t an issue that requires much thought as we seem to have pretty concrete ideas of what marriage is, however, when you start to ask some of the fundamental questions about marriage apart from what our traditions tell us we find that not all is so air tight.
I’m particularly interested in how marriage relates to morality and how it is a reflection of God’s nature and character. For example what is it about marriage that makes it a requirement for two people to live together and have it be morally acceptable and how does that relate to God’s nature and character?
What I’d like to particularly comment on is the divorce issue that Michael raised in the illustration he provided. I’m not sure if I completely agree with him here that the two were “illegally” divorced. I mean don’t we all fail at keeping our vows from time to time in a number of ways. So, at what point does a perpetual failure to keep them constitute a genuine divorce? Couldn’t that imply that we’ve all been divorced and remarried many times to our spouse? Where does grace fall into all this? Continued….
continued from above… If marriage is a contractual agreement then is seems to me that to be divorced would require either party to intentionally declare their separation from their spouse completely and finally and not merely due to their sinful behavior. As we Christians are the bride of Christ and are sealed in Him, and our justification is a legal declaration before God that we are made right by faith alone, not by works of the law, then similarly isn’t our union with our spouse not merely a matter of living up to our vows and/or works of the law so to speak- since we all fall short at times- but just as we are justified by faith before God, so we remain married by our aim to remain faithful to that person alone and hence we forgive them as God has forgiven us and we show the same kind of grace to our spouses as He has shown us? I think that’s why Jesus said that marital unfaithfulness was the only reason for divorce because it meant that the other person had left their spouse to pursue someone else therefore breaking the “contract.”
So, in Michael’s illustration it seems that the bad husband wasn’t necessarily breaking the contract as I didn’t see any mention of another women, but he was simply failing terribly at living out loving his wife perhaps much more than you or I do.
Anyway, it’s late here and I’m writing all this out quickly off the cuff, so I’m thinking out loud here and I’m totally open to any correction here. In love of course :)…