December 29, 2010
Cart Before the Horse
The Cora Indians fellowshipped with us for over a year and one Sunday the pastor was prepared to baptize a man and his wife. However, just prior to taking their confession of faith the preacher learned that the man and woman were not married, but living together. Rebounding quickly he explained privately through the interpreter that if they were going to live as man and wife they needed to be married before he could take their statement of faith and baptize them into the Lord Jesus Christ. Speaking to the congregation the pastor simply said, “This morning we have the opportunity to share in the joy of two celebrations!” In a matter of 20 minutes we witnessed the I do’s of marriage followed by the I do’s of baptism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Gail;
-----Different cultures have different ceremonies for conveying marriage upon a couple. We who know the Lord are a sub-culture of this American culture. We like a marriage ceremony performed by a recognized minister of God’s Word and plans. That way the marriage vows are said before God in public view, making all a witness to them. But does that mean a couple who were married in India years ago by its cultural ceremony must remarry by the ceremony we prefer before they are baptized? And what of the general American culture of which ours is a sub-culture? Many amongst this culture are married by a justice of the peace. Must they also remarry before baptism? In fact, as a tax preparer, I can legally marry a couple simply by preparing for their signature a joint income tax return. That is actually a common law marriage which is simply living with each other and dealing with the public as a married couple. Our general culture accepts that as marriage, too. And if the couple considers themselves as married before God by their intentions to live with each other completely as such, while the culture in which they live also recognizes their marriage, what more should be required than the sincerity in their hearts and their honor for any one of these cultural standards? So was a judgment not passed upon them by this minister?
-----I believe it was. I believe the sincerity of their marital commitment before God and faith in His acknowledgment as witness to it was pronounced as insincere. And worse yet, I believe it was determined for God that He was not being a witness to it. And all this was determined simply because a ceremony of the minister’s own recognition had not been performed. And the minister himself breached his own convictions, because the marriage ceremony our sub-culture prefers requires a marriage license, which could have not been had in twenty minutes. Therefore, I believe that in passing judgment upon them, he also passed judgment upon himself.
-----Yet, that is only a partial way of looking at this event. Really, the whole thing was a thing of beauty. Our general culture’s acceptance of common law marriage is merely the gestated child of the Progressive’s decades long deconstruction of tradition. If you study the philosophical roots of Progressivism, you will be surprised to learn that common law marriage is a step rather than a goal. Their goal is no marriage at all, as well as no traditions, either. Tradition is important to God because it exists as the convictions of many hearts together. Read about in the New Testament. So tradition is also important to this minister of God. I don’t know, but I believe he may have known in his heart that their marriage was real before God, however, tradition is either girded or destroyed by our actions. For the convictions of the people before whom this couple were baptized he may have performed the wedding ceremony. Whether or not this couple complied with him for the convictions of the same people, their submission nourished rather than burned many consciences. “So do not let your good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit; he who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.” (Rom 14:16-18)
Love you all,
Steve Corey
Steve, this couple was adopting a new faith and part of that faith is being married. They expressed that they were not married and only living together. There was no indication of a cultural marriage. If there had, then they would be considered married. Their new faith requires marriage in order to receive baptism. I don't believe the minister was being insincere.
Lisa;
-----Thank you for calling me to further thought. Even though the issue of insincerity I raised was regarding the minister’s insistence of a recognized procedure while disregarding the fullness of that procedure (no marriage license), I must agree with you. Marriage is a major decision, maybe second only to accepting the Lord. To me, seeing this couple immediately accept the proposition to marry indicated they must have been living with that commitment towards one another. Whether or not, the minister had to do something with their statement that they were not married. He did the best he could in a difficult situation, and quite admirably recognized the element of the marriage ceremony before God as more fundamental than the element of the state‘s issuance of a license. I would like to think I would have acted as wisely as he did, but I must admit, I probably lack the boldness he has.
-----The beauty of what he did runs really deep. We have a legal system which recognizes marriage by a couple’s simply holding itself out as being married. Yet that same legal system thinks it must license marriage. (At least it did when I married Char nineteen years ago. I remember signing the license to make the marriage legal.) One criteria of bad law is inconsistency. All good law must be consistent in its demands and its judgments. That this law’s requirement for a marriage license is now disregarded by the law of common marriage indicates how problematic the deconstruction of our culture has become. And the traditional insistence that two people step up to the plate and formally declare their marital status offered to both the individual and the community a clear and conscious statement of intention. Traditionally, if this was not done, there was no marriage. It was a line. Lines are paramount to behavior. So what this minister did was to cast his lot with three important matters: 1) acknowledge God’s involvement in the sanctity of marriage by a ceremony, 2) clarify their marital intentions for both the community and themselves, and 3) add the weight of this event to the cultural respect for well defined lines (at least, to what little of that respect there is left.)
-----Thank you , Lisa.
Steve
Post a Comment