In the fourth century, fearful of the world’s influence and thinking they were obedient to God, some Christians gathered into monasteries never seeing another person outside the cloister for years. Others worked in the fields while still others begged in the towns. They thought that if they tortured themselves it would produce holiness but it only produced pain. They totally withdrew from the world (culture) and that was wrong. We are to engage the culture without it changing us.

We must understand that there is no efficacy in punishing oneself, wearing ragged or squalid clothing, having a dirty face, body odor, unbrushed teeth, offensive personal habits, or living in filth and defilement. Such things drive people away from Christ rather than to Him. Some people are impressed by those weirdoes who fled society and lived in the desert, refused to marry, slept on the floor or hard bunks, ate turnip soup and hard bread and beat themselves from time to time. We are not impressed! That nonsense is fleeing the world not confronting the world. As often happens, humans have a tendency to go to extremes.

The culture laughs at biblical beliefs and practices as quaint, if not archaic. (Note that these are the people who butcher babies; preach perversion as good and desirable; puncture and print words and images on their bodies; watch debased, despicable, and disgraceful television and movies; think nothing of going to bed with strangers; etc.) They smile when we suggest that the common practice of dating is demeaning, destructive, even devastating to youth. They laugh out loud when we recommend that a young man actually court a young lady after requesting permission from the parents! Dating has proved a failure; courtship works.

A young man shows interest in a young lady. He is impressed with her character, charm, courtesy, but mainly her commitment to Christ. She would be an ideal lifetime spouse so he approaches her father for permission to court her. (That raucous laughter you hear from sea to shining sea is a reaction but not a rebuttal. There is a difference.)

With the fathers’ permission, the courting starts and may last many months until the couple and the parents agree that the match is well-made and meets the Bible’s qualifications. The dates will be supervised by a parent or sibling! (as eyes roll across the fruited plain.) A wedding date is set a couple months in the future after consulting with their pastor.

Arrangements are made for a series of counseling sessions to take place between the couple and the pastor and his wife. During those sessions, the couple is taught the basic facts about marriage. She is to be a chaste, gracious, thoughtful, obedient wife and he is to love, cherish and honor her. He is to provide for her and any future children and they will rear those children according to their agreed on rules. She will keep a clean, orderly home that he will be thrilled to return to each day.

The couple will discuss various aspects of marriage such as having children; how they are to be taught and disciplined; whether or not she will work outside the home; etc. They will agree that during disagreements, they will use the Bible as their guide Book. If there are differences that cannot be settled between them, they will seek Christian counselling. In the event of unfaithfulness they will not seek a divorce but will continue Christian counselling. If there is no possibility of reconciliation, they will wait six months before getting a divorce.

After the couple agrees on the basics of the understanding, they will choose their attendants, wedding attire, caterer, flower shop, etc. At the big day, the preacher will do the normal ceremony but at the end he will not say the wedding was done by the power of the state but by the authority of the family and maybe the local church officials. The happy couple will drive to the county courthouse and record the fact of their wedding, leave for their honeymoon, and return home to “set up housekeeping.” The wife will change her last name to that of her husband and inform everyone that she is his wife.

They will keep the wedding covenant as proof of their marriage, plus record it in the family Bible. Changes should be made on all insurance policies, wills, trusts, post office box, safety deposit box, and utilities. Everyone must know that the wedding has taken place.

There is a new family in town, joined by God not the state!

(Ninth of nine columns dealing with no state involvement in marriage.)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

“But what if a man wanted to marry his goat?” Well, other laws would kick in that would prohibit that. Most states have laws against bestiality or even animal rights laws would prevail! After all, how can an animal give permission? There are people who consider themselves married to their goat, horse, or dog at this present time.

My critics will argue that promiscuity, polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, and perversion would become widespread but taking the state out of marriages would not make it any worse than now. Everyone knows that millions of people are living promiscuously in a nation where an unmarried male could not be in a hotel room with an unmarried female only 60 years ago. Some couples change bed partners as often as they change their socks. Maybe more often.

As to polygamy, it is rather common (although illegal) in Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and other western states where Mormons have been influential for a hundred years. In recent years, Muslims have been added to the mix making multiple wives more common. Two ways to go with this issue: Let each state permit or prohibit polygamy in the interest of society. I predict that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide that any sexual arrangement will be permissible.

Less known is the act of polyandry where a woman has more than one husband. In some societies, a woman marries a man and gets all his brothers in the deal. Again, let states permit it or prohibit it in society’s interest. Whatever becomes legal, God will have the final word!

In recent years perversion has become acceptable, approved, even applauded in most states so what will preachers do when they are told that they must perform same-sex “marriages” since they perform natural marriages? They should stop doing any state-approved weddings and limit all weddings to couples they know. Preachers should not wait until they are kicked out of the wedding business by the state. We (for I did like everyone else for many years) never should have taken a license to perform weddings in the first place. If a grandchild asked me to perform his or her wedding approved by the state, I would refuse.

If a state has the authority to permit you to get married, they can tell you that you cannot. So will you obey them? You say it is God’s will for you to marry, then why ask the state? If a state prohibited members of a specific denomination from getting married, should they obey that law? No sane Christian would agree they should. One of my oldest friends was a missionary in Spain and told me that the government refused to permit Evangelicals and Fundamentalists to marry. Marriage licenses had to be approved by the Roman Catholic Church and such permission often took many months, if given at all, so the Christians simply had their wedding ceremonies, without a license, as they had been doing for centuries. Later, the government relented and anyone could get a license; however “they also had a civil ceremony before a judge.” If we agree with that, we have lost the battle.

Medieval Christians disregarded the law and married without any “required” approval from the state. In 1551, Baptists in Europe refused to be married by the clergy of the dominant church, but were united in marriage in the church of which they were a member. Their enemies charged them with encouraging licentiousness. Having unapproved marriages in their own church brought scorn and false accusations upon them but they refused to obey the government. John Bunyan and others in England went to jail rather than permit the government to license them to preach, baptize, marry, and bury the dead.

My suggestion: Take the state and federal government totally out of the wedding business. Permit any church to marry any couple who is willing to satisfy the church’s requirements, rules, and regulations. Then the state would recognize any church-approved weddings without any state approval. The couple could then record their marriage at the county courthouse thereby recognizing the legitimacy of any children, and protecting property of heirs, Social Security, insurance beneficiaries, retirement plans, etc.

Government officials could still perform weddings, usually of atheists or anti-religious individuals but they would be no more official than those performed by a pastor of a small store-front church in Harlem or Houston.

Astute thinkers are looking ahead and asking “But what about divorce?” First of all, most of the pastors I know who use a marriage covenant will not marry any couple who does not eschew divorce. Marriage is for a lifetime. However, in a broken world divorces happen. It would be no problem to expect state regulations to kick in although they would be as unfair, unreasonable, and unworkable as the present circumstances. The premise is that no government has authority to control marriage; but in breaking up a home, children and innocent parties must be protected by law just as the state is responsible to keep the peace, enforce contracts, protect the public, etc. In other words, continuing the massive failure that is taking place now.

To those who yell “inconsistent,” I reply that they have not thought the issue through. Slavery, concubines, and multiple wives were never approved by God but He did provide guidelines for those who broke His pattern of one man–one woman, for life. If a man held slaves, contrary to God’s will, the slave owner must treat the slaves well and set them free in the seventh year. So if men did not obey God, it was wrong; but they had to exist and God made provision for the innocent parties to survive.

Friends of mine who only marry couples with a “marriage covenant” usually give each couple a family Bible and record the fact of the marriage, date, and witnesses, along with signatures of witnesses as proof of their marriage. Such a record has always been valid in every state.

If two atheists or a same-sex “couple” choose to “marry,” the couple could announce their marriage in the local paper, have it recorded at the county court house and “set up housekeeping.” Again, no church or government would be involved or give permission.

If we the people take back authority from the states, especially concerning marriage, then same-sex “marriage” becomes a moot issue. However, that is not the reason for getting the state out of marriages but it is a very good consequence.

If the state can permit marriages, it can prohibit marriages. Would you obey?

(Seventh of nine columns dealing with no state involvement in marriage. Next column: “Biblical Marriage, Not Polygamy, Polyandry, Polyamory, Promiscuity or Perversion is Acceptable!”)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

All state officials want a stable society where citizens can live contented lives, pay taxes, and continue to reelect them to public office. Most officials know that families influence a city or state more favorably than gangs, nightclubs, honkytonks, or even schools, art museums, and most churches. A return to the historical and Biblical approach to marriage would not mean an increase in degrading, deviant, and deadly activities since they would continue as they are now.

Moreover, if a state wanted to encourage normal, one-man one-woman marriage relationships, they could do so by the tax code, the bully pulpit, etc., or a state could refuse to make any judgment on any family arrangements. Government would still prohibit marriage between close relatives, mentally handicapped, or minors since that would disrupt society.

As to requiring a blood test before marriage, the state could nullify those laws (as some have done) and permit each church to make its own rules. Many would decide that if a person falsified a blood test and proceeded with a wedding with one partner infected with an STD, that marriage would become null and void with announcements made to the congregation to that effect. The state would be notified to deal with the divorce and prosecute the offender.

Laws must require the protection of children of any marriage arrangement since children are the future and their training and character will determine the stability of the state. Any state can give benefits to normal marriages because it is in the interests of the state to do so. It seems society gives benefits to married people because a stable family provides benefits to society. The state is interested in a stable society, so it is in the interests of the state to have productive, educated adults therefore a state can reward parents who commit to preparing children for the future. Therefore, a state may give generous benefits to every marriage that produces children. If homosexual “couples” complain, the state can simply say, “When you have babies, you will receive the same benefits.” Of course, homosexuals can do as today and adopt children although it is very unwise to permit that.

Everyone, except the willfully blind, agrees that strong families benefit society so the state can justify giving benefits to natural marriages. It is only wise to do so. Proponents of other kinds of “marriages” will scream about the “unfairness” but so be it. Let them scream, after all, it was their decision to not have a natural marriage.

Adoptions, child welfare, divorce, alimony, child support would still be responsibility of the state. Repeal of no fault divorce should be accomplished in every state but that won’t happen.

A newspaper columnist responded to this issue of state involvement in marriages: “Since I printed the letter from ‘Deceived in Arizona’ (Nov. 30), I have learned that not only individuals, but also some churches feel so strongly about separating the legal aspect of marriage from the religious that they have voted …[that] their clergy no longer sign marriage licenses. Among them are member churches of the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian-Universalists and the Quakers. Instead, the model they follow is the one used in Europe, in which couples go to a courthouse to register their marriage, and then to a church or synagogue for a religious ceremony.” Also, some independent Presbyterians and independent Baptists do likewise.

Perversion disrupts society and does not contribute to stability. If historic anti-sodomy laws were passed then same-sex “marriage” would be a moot issue. Homosexual activity would be illegal anytime anywhere. That would be a return to sanity. It would also give clout to local authorities to prohibit cruising, public sex, solicitation, etc. However, anti-sodomy laws will not pass because of anti-Bible, anti-God, anti-common sense attitudes. Frankly, many twisted young people think two homosexual men married with a license is preferable to a man and woman married without a license! Their warped thinking considers mischief in a couple without a license but nothing outrageous for a same-sex “couple” to climb into bed together!

Homosexuals admit they want the blessings of the state on their union; however, the state is not in the blessing business. They can get that from the Pope if they have the cash, clout, and contacts.

In the absence of anti-sodomy laws, if a church had no Bible convictions about sodomy then they could “marry” the “couple.” Let me remind my critics that that is what is happening right now under present laws. People are doing what they want to do and church leaders without convictions, smile upon all kinds of evil. No government agency would be approving any kind of marriage arrangements. If some Fundamentalists and Evangelicals disliked the various weddings, they could say so. Such church leaders could show their disagreement, disapproval, and disdain by not accepting such unrepentant people into their membership.

Some pastors refuse to use a state-issued marriage license and use a marriage covenant instead. Such a thought horrifies some religious leaders and I wonder why. After all, the evidence is all on the side of the covenant makers not those who think state licensure is best and necessary. A covenantal relationship is much deeper than a merely contractual, state approved one.

Do we really believe that the state should regulate marriages? If so, why? They sure didn’t in the past. The onus is on my critics to provide reasons why the state should continue to license (regulate) marriages. It is one thing for the state to recognize the existence of a marriage and another thing for them to give permission for a marriage. No state has that right.

Moreover, without a marriage license from the state, the state would lose its professed authority to have control of any issue of that marriage. The marriage license is used by some states as an excuse to interfere in training of children. Some states even boldly declare that children belong to the state! Does any sane person out there believe that the state is a partner in their marriage? Many people are shocked to hear that and even refuse to believe it is a fact but Ohio law is very clear stating in an official brochure on marriage: “When you repeat your marriage vows, you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that legal contract: 1) you; 2) your spouse; and 3) the state of Ohio. The state is a party to the contract because under its laws, you have certain obligations and responsibilities to each other, to any children you may have, and to Ohio.”

Most people do not know that state marriage statutes are directory not mandatory! West’s Indiana Law Encyclopedia states: “Statutes on the subject of marriage, even though penal, are merely directory, and a marriage celebrated though not in accordance with the forms of the statute, is nevertheless valid.”

Maybe we should tell the states that they have overreached their authority. They have enough to do dealing with crime, law and order, welfare (which they should also leave to others), education (see previous parenthesis), repairing streets, etc., without getting involved in any religious activity.

How to handle divorce will be considered a major objection to my recommendation; however, could anything be worse than it is now? Church groups handled divorce in the past. Do you remember King Henry VIII who asked the Pope for a divorce so he could dump his wife to free him to marry a woman who might provide him a male heir? No fault divorce should be repealed forcing married people to justify a divorce usually for abuse, abandonment, or adultery. While marriage would be outside the bailiwick of the state, divorce would not be.

It’s time to insist on total separation of church (but not God) and state. Let’s start with the wedding business. In fact, it has already started with the pastors who refuse to use a marriage license and opt for a marriage covenant instead.

However, look for a fight because the state does not like losing any of its power to control people. Instead of looking to the state for approval, let’s disapprove of the state’s intrusion into marriage! Let’s take away state power to certify, approve, or license any marriage. While it will remove the messy problem of approving same-sex marriage, it will not end same-sex “families.”

Safe, secure, and stable homes produce a steady state but one that has no authority over who marries whom.

(Third of nine columns dealing with no state involvement in marriage. Next column: “Marriage: Consent, Commitment, Consummation, and Communication!”)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”