The New Testament also forbids sexual relations outside marriage. Hebrews 13:4 commands everyone to honor the institution of marriage. In 1 Timothy 4:3, Paul warned that a sign of the end times would be an abandonment of the divine institution of marriage.
Despite the arguments of some, the odds of a successful marriage do not increase because a couple lives together before marriage. In fact, studies reveal the opposite is true.
Where do professing Christian couples find justification for living together without marriage? Their own desires and an immoral culture provide support, but God’s Word is neither vague nor confusing on this point: A personal commitment between a man and woman is not the moral equivalent of a biblical marriage.
I’d be interested to hear how different priests approach the issue of cohabitation within their congregations. How have you encouraged couples to seek marriage, how have you approached the tension between welcoming and affirming their lifestyle? If they are both baptized do you commune them, at what level of involvement/leadership do you draw the line because of their cohabitation? We have the difficult task of speaking truth into a culture (even within our churches) that sees nothing wrong with cohabitation–I’m wondering what ways people have found to proclaim the Christian ideal without running people off before they understand who Jesus is and why they should lead their lives differently.
This is very sad.
At my church, we had a couple dating and the girl become pregnant. On top of that, the guy is divorced (the wife is still living) and they have been living together for six months. They hid the pregnancy from the minister for some time, but eventually told him what was going on. As they were associates of mine, it was a really difficult dilemma from me. As a lay Eucharistic minister, I would have to administer the cup them if they came to my line. So, I encouraged them to tell the minister what was going on, so that I wouldn’t have to be the one to tell him. Because, I would not have been able to administer the cup to them, knowing that they are living in sin. They stopped coming to church, which resolved my dilemma. Anyway, the woman has had the baby. Some women from the church had a baby shower for her. Some of the men from the church took the father out during the baby shower. . After some encouraging, I attended, but it was very uncomfortable. There really wasn’t any talk of repentance or return to the church after a period of repentance.
I think churches need to have better teaching on sexuality and marriage. Also, when people commit sexual sins, they should be excommunicated, period. When they repent, they should be received back into the church with open arms. Better teaching and church discipline would solve this problem!
-Vincent
The Priests I have tremendous respect for in our area, both Roman And Anglican, have the same philsophy: Do not ask me to bless your status of “In Heat” with Holy Matrimony.
They then require that If the couple is serious about commiting their joint lives in Christian marriage, live apart and celibate for six months, in prayer and preparation, and then they will honor their union with Holy Matrimony. There is no compromise on this, marriage, among these Godly men (The Anglicans are all married, and no female priests have I met yet that hold this stricture as serious), requires serious commitment and prayer, and they are clear to them again and again as to the difference between marriage and Holy Matrimony.
I’d venture to say if I tracked the couples that have consented to be united in this way, their long term success rates are far above the national averages….
If that drives folks away from Holy Matrimony, then so be it. Better they unite not at all, then to do so without God’s blessing.
Now, having said this, I will say honestly that I found some of the Roman strictures on who can marry whom within Canon Law to be questionable at best, and historically politically motivated at least. The Anglican Canons on who can marry whom are much more faithful to Scripture, IMHO. But both demand the couple embrace the level of commitment required to be successful BEFORE the vows are spoken.
KTF!…mrb
After a defining time in which I stopped playing games with Jesus and made Him Lord over my life, I spent many years in a non-dom Bible study with several fathers in the faith.
I was shocked when I spent time with my peers after this great environment. I’ve heard several people complain sexual behavior outside of marriage, thankfully I do not have knowledge of any of that sort of thing. However, I was at a Bible study at large, well-know, T19-friend, orthodox parish with a group of young adults when the option of an engaged couple when the lady’s parents received orders that they were to be stationed at another post was to move in together, the two other ladies didn’t bat an eye. At another parish that could be described the same, a leading couple in a church-plant were engaged and living together and they were hosting the plant. These are well know parishes but there seems this disconnect between a personal morality that is derived from Scripture and what the mouth speaks. I was involved in a conversation with a lady who was drawing on reasoned ethics that was completely divorces from Scripture, yet this lady was at GC03 and really wanted to separate herself from ECUSA on that but seemed to exhibit a form of personal antinomianism if it involved the popular people. In conclusion of an exasperated exchange of email on a topic in which I pointed to Scripture but received logic in return that could be from an unbeleiver, “[i]One item that may cause a failure is that I’m unsure that we even have a common language for ethics.[/i]”
I’m honestly befuddled. The preaching is dead on and very good but I do not see discipline on these issues from leadership. There seems a lacking of an internal self compass to seek out Scripture for themselves in my peer group. There seems this blending of the world and Christ even in the leading parishes when the Scriptures speak to matters closer to home instead of abstract ones.
A few years ago I was part of the discernment process for a potential deacon in my parish who had lived with a woman for a number of years, unmarried. This issue was openly discussed with the candidate and parish priest during the process. At our final closed meeting the other committee members were all glossing over this issue, when I stated that I could not vote to recommend him to the Vestry to proceed in the process. Once the ice was broken everyone else agreed, and the candidate was told that a decision needed to be made to either get married or move out, and we would be willing to reconsider the matter in a year. While they did finally get married, I don’t believe he ever asked for reconsideration. Sometimes all it takes is for someone to get the ball rolling.
In fact, studies reveal the opposite is true.
Well, I don’t know what studies those are, but I doubt they do. The only studies I’ve ever heard establish correlation between cohabitation and divorce. Correlation does not imply causality. In this case, it’s just as likely that the divorce reflects loose attitude about marriages – and lack of commitment. This factor, then, was the common cause to both events (cohab and divorce.)
Maybe I’m nitpicking, but I don’t want science being used for anything more than it can do.
As an engaged person to be married in the next few months, I think I can speak to this issue with some relevance. I was always brought up in a family (and largely a local community) which still openly frown (to put it politely) on cohabitation. I think that has always formed my opinion on the matter. In small towns in the South, that is just the way it is, on the surface at least.
I still believe that, but sometimes I wonder if I was brought up in as an anachronism. That is certainly not the belief or understanding at the culture at large. Even when I was in seminary, that was largely not the understanding from most of my classmates (many of whom were my age or younger). Many a lampooning joke was made about so-and-so “living in sin” but the majority view was that this was fine.
As far as I could understand it, the doctrinal basis for this belief was something akin to either “Well, if they are in love then it must be okay…” or “We have to be relevant to culture, and that’s just the way it is so we have to tolerate it because we don’t want to be judgmental.” The first logic (or lack thereof) irritated me to no end, especially coming from the next batch of clergy.
The second option I found a little more palatable as it was at least trying to make church teaching quasi-applicable to post-Beaver Cleaver society. I will acknowledge that perhaps the ethical and moral condition of an engaged couple’s cohabitation is higher than two people “shacking up” with no real intention of being permanent. But I was still somewhat heartbroken over the lack of respect for the sacrament of marriage. If people can just live together and “it’s ok” then exactly what purpose is there of marriage (does it make it somehow magically more ok?) other than civic benefits like joint filing of taxes.
I think I may continue this comment as a blog post on my own blog…
It just shows how seductive the culture is to even self-proclaimed Christians. It also shows how we can deceive ourselves.
I take a different stance on this. I would seperate two issues. One is people of the oppisit sex cohabitating the other is people have sex outside the bonds of marriage. Simply living together does not imply the second part.
Given the biblical texts regarding divorce and remarriage, would “cohabiting” of the divorced and remarried also be a concern? Although the state allows such, does the bible? I believe one of the recently designated bishops (or bishops to be) of the Common Cause Partnership is divorced and remarried. If scripture is the measure by which the orthodox act, how can any plain reading of scripture support such, and should they cohabit, how is it different than the unmarried cohabiting? And how can such illicit conduct be approved in a bishop?
Plainsparson,
I see your point, and might agree except that I think people have a specific set of behaviors in mind when they say “cohabitation” that mean more than simply being opposite-sex roommates. For instance, one of my good friends went to work in DC after grad school and had to find an apartment very quickly. He ended up sharing a two-bedroom apartment with a female friend of his that he knew from his graduate program for several months. They weren’t romantically involved and had separate bed-rooms and bathrooms etc… he has now moved out into a house that he shares with about 5 other men, all about the same age. While I wouldn’t necessarily say his living arraignments were ideal for a variety of reasons (nor would he) they weren’t immoral. That said, some might argue that he shouldn’t have lived there to avoid the appearance of evil. while I understand that to a degree, I’m not sure it applies (even putting aside translation issues).
However, I would argue that most males and females that move in together are in fact an item, live as a couple and more often than not are not living celibatly. If they do not consider themselves a couple, in my experience among my peers (I’m mid 20’s), they often treat one another as “friends with benefits,” in that they may date others, but when they have an itch they can’t scratch elsewhere they partake of each others’ company in a manner that used to be limited to couples or prostitutes.
All that is to say that most of the time those who want to make a distinction between “cohabitation” and premarital/extramarital sex are simply having an argument no one else is having, since most people–both those who condemn it and those who participate in it–assume sex when that term is used. Otherwise they would just say roommates. Cohabitation or “shacking up” connotes sex in most people’s minds. Where it doesn’t, it is an exception and should be dealt with separately.
Well, when we had the article about mid-life crisis in women yesterday, there was one comment. At least this has produced nine. I don’t believe TEC as a teaching community has committed anymore to the ideal and idea of Christian marriage and particularly as the place of sexual life and that outside marriage, we commit sin when we are sexually active. I’ll say it again: sex is recreational and nothing more to our society and the TEC. Because this is so or stated so weakly in opposition, our voice – TEC – is gone. One says this, another says that and in the end hands are thrown up, “Who cares, anyway?” Or “Is anybody listening . . . that cares?” Sacrament? What’s that?
Plainparson, there was a practice called “bundling” practiced by Christians a couple centuries ago in which a couple would sleep together in the woman’s house, with her family, but with a board separating the man and woman.
It’s not exactly the same as what you are imagining but it’s close.
I am curious about this topic, as I also see a difference between cohabitation and extramarital sex. I don’t agree with most instances of living together before marriage, but wonder what might be said of this particular instance.
The first part of my husband’s and my college life (before we married) was spent living in a dorm. We lived in the same building but in different wings (co-ed dorm with separate wings for men and women). At some point the cost of living in the dorms was a major financial strain (we really had no choice to move out) for both of us, and his parents offered to let us move into the house. Obviously it was fine for my husband to move back home with his parents, but what was I going to do? I had no job, my financial aid wouldn’t cover a dorm room or apartment, and my parents lived about an hour and a half away (I didn’t have transportation, either).
His parents offered me my own room in their home in exchange for doing my share of the housework. I was treated as if I were one of their own children rather than their son’s girlfriend. I shared a bathroom with the boys and ate meals with the family. I believe because of my time spent living there I have a better relationship with my brother-in-law. He treats me like a big sister. I really got to know my in-laws and have a great relationship with my mother-in-law.
I was living in the same house as my future husband before we were married, but is it really “cohabitating” when I moved in with his whole family and had my own room? My very fundamental Protestant mother didn’t have a problem with the situation, and our priest seemed okay with it (we discussed the situation in premarital counseling).
#14,
Again, I don’t think that most people consider this situation when they use the term “cohabitation” even though that is technically what it is.
#14, I don’t think that’s the same sense of “co-habitating” as in the article. I had a somewhat similar “living in the same house, but not living together” experiance for three months, and had a fair bit of trouble explaining it to relatives (and being beleived that we really did have seperate bedrooms), though the immediate familes knew us well enough to trust us. I think, though, that the article is more like the situation of a friend of mine, who’s lived with her boyfriend (“as man and wife” as they use to say, ahem) for going on 7 years, and she shrugs off or ignores any suggestion of marriage.
Cohabitation and premarital sex are hard topics to address for modern Episcopal clergy (provided that they even want to), mainly because TEC leadership undercuts any/ all moral teaching authority. How can we argue against premarital sex when a very prominent Bishop lives with his partner in defiance of traditional marriage? Or how can a priest say “You have to do x because of y scripture and z tradition” when the couple can turn around and say “well that’s just your opinion, Fr. So and So said such and such and Bishop so and so interprets the scripture this way, etc…” TEC grants its priests no solid teaching authority since it has consistently discarded both scripture and tradition.
To get at the root of the issue, I think we need to look at what the bible says about marriage.
Both man and woman are under the authority of their parents until marriage. In particular, the woman because of the fall is to be under the authority of a man at all times. Single women are under the authority of their father or a male relative until marriage when she comes under the authority of her husband.
Marriage in the Scriptures is defined as a union between one man and one woman for life. They make a public declaration of commitment to each other and cohabitate together. The couple doesn’t need a marriage license, a wedding ceremony or anything of that nature to be “married†in the eyes of God (the State is a different matter). There simply needs to be a public declaration of their union. If you take a look at the passages that discuss divorce, divorce is the sending away of the spouse with a bill of divorcement (separation) freeing that spouse from the marriage. That was instituted by Moses to protect women from the accusation of adultery, which in Ancient Israel was a capital offense. Divorce in biblical terms is when the couple that God joined together separate and no longer live under the same roof. That is the negative side. The positive side is that marriage is when a man and woman come together and live under the same roof.
Jesus and the new law he instituted stated that the only reason for divorce (i.e. separation) of the couple is fornication/adultery. If they married another person, they are committing adultery. Remarriage is only permissible when one’s spouse dies, thereby freeing you from that person.
I don’t believe anyone can find biblical support for a man and women to cohabitate together regardless of whether they are having sex or not.
I realize that the social engineers have structured society to such an extent that it’s difficult to conform to God’s laws, but as Christians we must. That includes all areas of sexuality. Honestly, I don’t think evangelicals should be pointing their fingers at homosexuals, when we are also promoting/allowing rebellion from God’s created order in the area of cohabitation, marriage and divorce.
-Vincent
Amen and Amen, Michael B+ Therein is our delema and our lose of authority based on teaching truth. Opinion! TEC is the Church of opinion. No doctrine, remember. Just opinion. Welcome!
I agree with 18. Vincent when he says that noone “can find biblical support for a man and women to cohabitate together regardless of whether they are having sex or not. ..and Honestly, I don’t think evangelicals should be pointing their fingers at homosexuals, when we are also promoting/allowing rebellion from God’s created order in the area of cohabitation, marriage and divorce. ” He hit the nail right on the head. A grand dame at my former parish once said that the gays are the only people who want to get married anymore; all the young girls are content to just shack up. How is this any different than what the gays ask? Robinson is a divorced bishop in another shacking up scene just like how many other bishops in the church. I’m remarried after a two divorces, so the roman church sees me as shacking up, too, and probably already has my seat to hell reserved, I guess. Thank God I know Jesus.
Dear Vincent,
If you excomunicated everyone who has commited a sexual sin – the body of Christ would be very small I fear. Actual excommunications are very rare – shunning is I think what you meant?
The Church should defend and promote basic traditional sexual morality and the institution of marriage. Cohabitation should be discouraged (and it does imply a sexual relationship in both the vernacluar and at law) – but unless one is seeking Church office – I do not think the Church should exclude the transgressor – just as the homosexual should not be shuned from the pews. However, the Church should not bless that which is not holy or in accordance with its teachings- but to kick out the sinner seems contrary to Jesus’ teachings. A couple seeking matrimony is seeking to get their house in order – punitive actions for past transgressions seems conterproductive.
How can the Church be in the position of “supporting” “basic traditional sexual morality and the institution of marriage” when it declares that its governing units (the Dioceses) should offer insurance benefits to domestic partners? The Diocese of Olympia did this in convention a couple of years ago; I protested VERY loudly and was shouted down by the majority of the delegates! Certainly, when our leaders are promoting this, those in the pews will follow suit.
Moreover, I know the priests in my congregation simply pass on the issue of cohabitation before marriage. They act like there is nothing that they can really do to enforce separation!
Chips:
I do think that people who are unrepentantly committing sins should be excommunicated from the church. They should be refused communion until the minister knows that they have repented and are on the right track.
When the church does not discipline people who live in open sin, it is very demoralizing for believers who are keeping themselves pure. I’m single and temptations do abound. Thankfully, God has kept me pure in this area, but it has been a struggle. So, when fellow believers who fall are not disciplined, then why should you continue in your struggle for purity. Everyone is getting to “cut the cake and eat a piece too!â€
-Vincent
I have often wondered how many of the cohabiting couples have never actually fallen in love – really fallen in love – and so have adopted cohabitation as a pragmatic solution to two troublesome problems: Apartments are expensive so that living together makes economic sense, and trolling for reliable sex is expensive and time consuming, so that having one man/woman available consistently makes life much easier and convenient.
I suspect that we are dealing with two generations for whom sex preceded love, so that love, in its early innocent form, never had a chance to establish a sense of intrinsic value that required selflessness as a ground value. Early sex, I still think, stifles love by equating it with the pleasure of the self-centered and body-functional (if I can invent a term). Well, I have said this badly, I see, but maybe someone can say it better. Larry
I think that #18 illustrates a real issue here. Many of the traditional (i.e., in ancient and medieval Christian authorities) arguments against premarital sex are deeply rooted in the notion that women are not, and cannot be, independent decision-makers in the same way that men can. Whether married or unmarried, females should always be under the authority of a male who can save them from having to make choices about life, career, family, marriage, sexuality, or anything else; all these decisions are to be made for them by the male who acts as their head. The arguments about whether women can have consensual sex before marriage are just a sideshow to the serious debate in the patristic and scholastic literature about whether women are fully rational beings.
Today’s popular notion that men are out for sex except when curbed by a woman’s natural virtue is a very modern idea; the tradition argued exactly the opposite: that women are naturally lustful and licentious unless curbed by a man’s authority and intellect. As late as the 1888 Lambeth Conference, the Report on Purity could assert, “We declare that on the man, in his God-given strength of manhood, rests the main responsibility.”
There are certainly other powerful arguments for premarital chastity, but most of the Fathers and many reasserters today rely heavily on the idea that consensual relations with an unmarried woman is simply impossible, because her status as being under the headship of another man means that she cannot effectively consent. Looked at from another angle, the disparities in physical, social, economic, and political power between men and women mean that a female’s consent (like a child’s) is generally coerced, rather than genuinely voluntary. So, premarital intercourse is usually a sexual assault (some radical feminists would make the same argument about marital relations).
Like it or not, only a vanishingly small number of our contemporaries will ever buy that argument. It is the official teaching of even quite conservative denominations that women are full and equal rational beings with the same ability and right to make responsible decisions as men. Arguments that would limit women’s power to make sexual choices as part of a general policy placing them permanently under male authority will be regarded as the moral equivalent of arguments making one race justly subject to another. If you want to reverse the trend towards regarding premarital sex as normative (and I’d say 92% is pretty normative), you are going to have to come up with another argument.
#27: I find that The modern teachings on the morality of sex and marriage are not grounded in the decision making abilities of either partner. Likewise, I don’t think marriage and the prohibitions on premarital sex are about controlling or limiting women.
Rather, the prohibition is about properly using one’s God-given sexuality. This perpective is grounded on the notion that sex is ordered towards procreation- that when practised without technological interference, sex is intended to create children. Thus, couples should be concretely committed to one another before having sex- since the act could create a child, which is a life-long committment in itself.
The theological side to this is that Christian marriage sybolizes and signifies Christ’s union and relation to His Church. Christ is committed to His Church throughout all time. He will never fail or turn away. He will always uphold his promise to sustain and nourish the Church.
Premarital sex offends this concept because there’s no concrete committment in place- the relationship status is unknown. The man and woman might split the next day, they might not.
And the participants are sharing in God’s creative love, but they’re not committed to the responsibilities it brings. This would be roughly similar to refusing to take driver’s ed., and refusing to get a driver’s license and then buying a car and speeding all over town.
So the prohibitions against premarital sex aren’t about limiting a woman’s choice, but rather about expecting and requiring responsibility from both sides.
I have to agree with Michael B (#28).
#27,
You’re reasoning rests upon the historical understanding that it has been important to control women’s sexuality, yet none of those academics who support such a view argue that women’s sexuality was controlled for its own sake, rather there were economic, social and even political issues involved. Most of these issues revolved in some way around the procreation of children, i.e. it was seen as very important to:
1) Have an abundance of children and,
2) to ensure the blood link between the father and the children, thereby ensuring continuation of the family line (and all the alliances , protection etc… resulting from it).
Your argument seems to be this: because women’s sexuality was constrained by men in the past for reasons that weren’t moral in nature, then any inhibition or infringement upon sexual choice is by definition not a moral constraint. But because this historically contingent way of ordering society and relationships (that is, being very concerned with patrimony and therefore with women’s sexual relationships) was not primarily about controlling women, but was the result of the fact that women are the bearers of the next generation, your argument must be applied to the social conditioning resulting in a desire to control and protect children.
Because the desire to have children, protect them, and ensure that they were biologically related to the family was historically conditioned in the Ancient Near East, it must not be a moral imperative, and therefore the protection of children in the contemporary world has no standing amongst our peers. Therefore there can be no moral argument against abortion.
I’m sorry Dale, but all you’ve done is talked a bit about social history when what we’re actually talking about are moral commands. The application of these commands may take place in historically contingent environments, and be as imperfect as the sinful people seeking to follow them, but that in no way invalidates the fact that they are moral commands. Therefore, the biblical teaching and ideal that sex is appropriately expressed within the bounds of a lifelong monogamous (heterosexual) relationship is as applicable today as is the biblical and moral imperative to protect the lives of children. The fact that many of our peers would reject the necessity or applicability of both doesn’t negate them, nor does the fact that other historical and cultural issues arose in the past (polygamy, providing heirs/children for a brother/sister-in-law etc…).
#27,
All of that said, I believe your critique of #18 is well taken, and I agree that the reasoning of control/headship is not very convincing–but neither does past reliance upon it negate the moral ideals it tangentially protected.
Vincent:
I do not believe denial of a sacrament and excomunication are the same concept – though I could be wrong. I also do not think that your desire to remain chaste should be dependent upon punitive actions by the Church against others. Athough I do agree that those seeking Church office should live a lifestyle in conformity with the Church’s teachings.
Again, I am not arguing that there are not powerful arguments for premarital chastity (## 28 & 29 raise some of them), only that the particular argument raised by #18 is not only going to be incomprehensible to most of our contemporaries (including most of our Christian contemporaries), but actively offensive to many of them.
Parenthetically, #28 uses another traditional argument that most of our contemporaries (including the Christian ones) will never accept: that because sex is primarily intended to create children, sexual acts that are not directed towards reproduction (including most premarital sexual acts) are inherently disordered and morally unfit. Quite apart from the Anglican acceptance of artificial contraception after 1930, even the Roman Catholic Church since 1950 has allowed couples to engage in sex while consciously and intentionally trying to avoid conception. The change in priorities is reflected in the list of three purposes ordained by God for marriage in most marriage rites for the past 50 years. From the 1549 Prayer Book on, procreation was listed as #1; in all the more recent books, it is #3.
To repeat, I am not arguing in favor of premarital inchastity, just pointing out that some of the arguments that have been used against it for nearly 2000 years are logical inferences from premises that are no longer universally accepted, even within the Christian community.
Conversely, some of the modern arguments are based on premises that are far from traditional. The prime example is the claim that sex is so unqualifiedly holy and wonderful a thing that it should only be shared with our spouse. It is hard to find any Christian writer much before Maribel Morgan’s Total Woman in 1970 who did not find that even marital sex could constitute a moral danger for one reason or another.
Perhaps in the interest of public relations, I should have said that women should be under the “protection†of a man, instead of “authority.â€
Dale stated:
[i] [b] Again, I am not arguing that there are not powerful arguments for premarital chastity (## 28 & 29 raise some of them), [u] only that the particular argument raised by #18 is not only going to be incomprehensible to most of our contemporaries (including most of our Christian contemporaries), but actively offensive to many of them. [/i] [/u] [/b]
Here lies the problem. We only want to obey what we find comfortable and in keeping with modernity. Thankfully, God doesn’t change his mind at whim or what’s in keeping with current fashions. What man devises is irrelevant. It is the biblical teaching that is relevant. Christians conform to Christ and his teachings, not conform Christ’s teachings to the world.
The biblical teaching is that man and woman are equal. However, because of the fall, women were placed under the authority of the man. The woman is under the authority (or protection) of her father or male relative until she marries. At that time she comes under the authority/protection of her husband. You can even argue that the man is under the authority of his father or male relative until marriage based on Gen 2 where it states that the man leaves his father and mother. St. Paul also elaborated on this theme in 1 Cor 11. Man is the image and glory of God whereas the woman is the glory of man. Why, because man was create first and woman (Heb-> out of man) came from man. Lest men think they are superior, Paul then states that men are born of women. So, men come out of women, but all things are of God.
The issue of women not being able to teach or hold authority over men in the church is also based on the fall and the God ordained arrangement of male – female relations. Paul speaks to this in 1 Tim 2, interestingly before he speaks on the qualifications for elders and deacons.
Issues of sexuality are also connected with this, because God create Man (adam), male (Heb-> piercer) and female (Heb->pierced), he created them. When the man and woman come together, the TWO become one flesh. This excludes multiple marriages, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, beastality, etc.
So, this leads me to the question of cohabitation. Can a man and a woman live together without being married? The biblical answer is NO! Why? Marriage as defined by the Scriptures is when a man and woman live together under the same roof. Both male and female leave their parents authority/protection and form their own family unit. Out of this union comes the next generation. When man and woman shack up, it’s no more than “prostitution.†Sleeping with someone without martial commitment is in all practical terms, prostitution.
-Vincent
Dale, are you saying that we should only make the arguments that others are willing to accept?
Re #34: Of course I am not suggesting you should make only arguments that others will accept. I am more simply suggesting that it is a complete waste of time to make an argument in the form of “Since A, then B” unless the person you are talking to agrees that A is the case.
When the person does not believe that every woman should be under the authority of a male her entire life, there is no point in giving that as a reason for abstaining from premarital sex. When the person does not agree that sexual activity must always be directed towards reproduction, again there is no point in giving that as a reason. Instead of taking these premises as given, you might want to devote your energies to giving reasons why everyone should accept them.
I am further suggesting that these particular two premises are so widely rejected, even within the Christian community (Pius XII was hardly a reappraiser), that the mere effort to assert them will damage the speaker’s credibility so badly that hardly anyone will pay any attention to his other valid arguments.
Exactly, and my point is precisely that only sectarian Protestants think that each individual has the right to determine the “plain meaning” of the Bible for himself, apart from the consensus of the particular church to which he belongs. They turn Catholic/Orthodox ecclesiology on its head by turning the church into a voluntary association of those whose private interpretations happen to coincide.
Vincent,
Your knowledge of what God wants is, I believe, right on. It is what Jesus taught that we should receive and practice. This is hard to deal with, for the Church has long been hard on sinners and for good reason. They are in active rebellion against God and their actions are public and reflect on us who strive to remain pure.
The thing that makes Jesus unique and hard to pin down is that he doesn’t react to sinners the way we often do. He ate with them, much to the chagrin of the “Ones Who Know The Law.” He did not approve of their sin, ever. He did not send send them away him either, ever.
Jesus woo’s those he loves. He uses the whips for those who hate him. If we are to build up the body, we too must woo. This is never taken to mean that we condone the sin of our fellows, but if once we send the sinners from our midst they will never come back. Why should they? Discipline should rarely involve kicking someone out.
You mentioned a baby in the situation. This is a whole new ball of wax. If a community of believers is to be an actual community then the very public baby should be a part of it. If they leave, they take the baby with them. How can we fulfill the call to make disciples if we send them away from birth?
The carrot works much better than the stick.
In peace,
The Ox
Dale:
Actually, what I have previously stated isn’t my opinion or “private interpretation.â€
1) When you compare all of the scriptures on marriage, divorce, sexuality, etc; what I have stated is in full agreement with the Scriptures.
2) When you compare what the earliest fathers of the church (those closest to the Apostles) have stated concerning the same subjects, I’m saying the very same thing.
Everyone has the RIGHT to read and interpret Scripture. However, I very strongly disagree with you that Scripture should be interpreted from the consensus of the particular church that one belongs. That’s how error continues.
Let’s take marriage for example. I would research all the passages in the Scriptures concerning marriage in context and in the original languages. In studying the context of the passages, I would seek to understand the passages as those to whom the Scripture passages were written would have understood them. That would involve some historical and cultural research. After thoroughly researching the topic, I would formulate what I believe the scriptures to be teaching on a particular subject. Next, I would research the apostolic fathers and what their [u] consensus [/u] is on the subject. They were the immediate disciples of the apostles or the second generation. They could ask the apostles questions and were privy to the oral teaching of the apostles. Finally, I would research the rest of the church fathers on the subject at hand. My biblical research and patristic research should agree. If it does, then I can rest assured that I am correctly interpreting the Scriptures. If my research doesn’t agree (which by the way, has yet to happen), I would research the Scriptures again.
Soooooo……..if I have not correctly stated what the Scriptures teach or what the church fathers have taught on the subject of cohabitation, marriage and divorce, then please by all means show me where I am in error.
As the real Vincent of Lerins stated:
[i] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,†which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. [b] This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. [/b] [/i]
-Vincent
Saint Dumb Ox,
With believers, it’s a different game. Believers are people who are born from above and we are a new creation. Therefore, sin really shouldn’t be our nature or character. As believers when we do sin, it breaks fellowship with God. If we repent for our sins, our fellowship is restored. If, we are unrepentant and continue in our sins, we continue in a state of broken fellowship with God.
Also, Paul gave instruction on dealing with a believer who had committed sexual sin in 1 Cor 5.
[i]…….deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 1 Cor 5:5 [/i]
and
[i]I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. [b] But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a [u] brother, [/u] who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person. [/b] For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.†– 1 Cor 5:9-13 [/i]
We are to have little contact with them except to encourage them to come back to the fold. That is done through repentance. Until that time, believers should not be in fellowship with them.
-Vincent
Vincent,
Again, if we do not offer grace, who will? I would offer that we should at most only deny communion and leadership positions to those who are “sinners.” If we kick out the people who sin, brother or no, then they will never come back. Why should they? There are too many other places for them to go. To many other people that will tell them that they did not sin and that they are just fine. Only by keeping them in the community can grace happen. Shunning and excommunication are not effective for most people because the relativistic world we live in will welcome them and they won’t leave.
If we were a part of a church that was active in actual welfare and no other group (the state in particular) offered any, then the punishment of disassociation might work.
What good happens when we tell the child to go to their room, but their room is Disney Land, Bush Gardens and Las Vegas?
Of course having the sinner in the body runs a risk of contamination, but I have no doubt that if your sins were as public as having a child out of wedlock and co-habitation then you would be just as dangerous a member to the body. The same goes for my sins.
I don’t think you would say that public sins and private sins should be dealt with in different ways. In fact, the private sins are far worse than the public ones.
I am sad to say that the Church, as she now stands, is not so attractive that should we kick someone out they will want to come back.
Saint Dumb Ox:
I agree that believers in unrepentant sin should be stripped of any leadership position and denied communion (i.e. excommunicated). The believer will still be able to attend the liturgy, but not partake in the Eucharist. Excommunication should be implemented by the elders of the church (or in the case of my church, the elder) on those who after the third warning have not repented.
Saint Dumb Ox said:
[i] Shunning and excommunication are not effective for most people because the relativistic world we live in will welcome them and they won’t leave. [/i]
Jesus stated in Matt 18:
[i] “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. [/i]
Excommunication is a spiritual matter. It is put into effect within the spiritual realm. So, it is really futile for the believer to think they can run from one church family to another church family to escape excommunication. By way of analogy, if I am convicted of a crime, but flee the country, the conviction still stands. So, if a believer leaves a church family they have been excommunicated from and joins another without being reconciled to the previous church family, they are still spiritually cutoff even if they fully participate in the life of the new church family. Fleeing from the church to the world or an accepting church family only makes the believer’s situation worst. They are becoming hardened in their sin and if they don’t repent, they are in danger of forfeiting their salvation. If they eventually repent and are reconciled with the church, they will be absolved of their sin. Just as excommunication is effected in the spiritual realm, so is absolution.
There is no difference between private and public sins since from God’s vantage point all sins are public. However, the church cannot do anything about private sins because they are not aware of those sins. Paul speaks to this point in the context of 1 Tim 5:24. However, when they are aware, proper action should be taken.
-Vincent