I'll be out for a week, posting resumes in March, thanks everyone!
-Kevin
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
The Two Kinds of Marriage.
Recently, I have begun to think about marriage. This is not entirely true. For the last three to four years, my mind has been consumed by marriage, mostly my own, but now that I have joined the ranks of the matrimonially joined I've begun to think and work through what I believe a marriage is, both culturally and theologically. I've done this because as a guy who wants to plant a church the question will inevitably come up: "Will you perform our wedding?"
Tony Jones wrote a blog post in January of 2010 stating that he believes that pastors should give up the right to perform legal marriages. For the benefit of those who do not know me (including Tony Jones) he and I disagree on most of the things he says, but in this case, I think he hit the nail right on the head. His post finally put into words something I have been trying to articulate for about two years. Here is where I have landed.
There are two kinds of marriage (thanks to Mr. Jones for giving them names) there is "Legal Marriage" and "Sacramental Marriage". Legal marriages then, are whatever the State (in my case Canada) says it is. In Canada, the legal definition reads:
Sacramental Marriage, then, as the name suggests, must conform to the biblical paradigm of marriage as set out by God and not legal authority. So then what is the Biblical paradigm? After a number of years, studying and pondering, I have come up with what I believe strongly to be the biblical paradigm for sacramental marriage. We know that God created sacramental marriage to be between a man and a woman in Genesis 2, but what many people fail to realize is that not only is sacramental marriage designed to be heterosexual, it was also a gift given to God's people (Adam and Eve in this case) therefore we can presume that sacramental marriage is to be between a Christian man and a Christian woman. these are the prerequisites: 1) Heterosexual and 2) Christian. Once those prerequisites are met, there are three criteria that meet the basis for a biblical marriage covenant.
1) Commitment: Obviously, we start with a desire to marry and a commitment on the part of both the man and the woman to be married. Practically, this manifests as the engagement and marriage vows.
2) Community: This commitment between the bride and groom is to be made and affirmed by a community. Practically, this would work itself out as the actual marriage ceremony being witnessed by both the body of believers the couple is a part of and family. This criteria is crucial since without it, any couple can simply take steps 1 and 3 and say: "In God's eyes, we're married" as an excuse for pre-marital sex.
3) Consummation: Also known as: "The reason we signed up for this". This one is simple, without consummation, there is no covenant, it's just plain Biblical. Not speaking, of course, to extreme cases where sex is not possible, but getting young couples to consummate their marriage won't be a problem.
Briefly then: For there to be a sacramental marriage, there must be a commitment that is affirmed by the community of faith and consummated by the couple for a covenant of marriage to exist.
With all of that said, where does this leave our loving couple and their pastor on the wedding day? Well we can't move on without mentioning Romans 13 and following the governmental authorities. In short, (again, this is in Canada) if a couple wants to be sacramentaly married, they must submit to legal marriage as well. Practically then, the couple would go to a Justice, become legally married, and then come to the church (or whatever venue) and have a sacramental wedding.
Is this method more practically complicated than the current setup? Yes. Will this mean that pastors who refuse this ability to solemnize legal marriages will also lose the privilege of for example, signing as a guarantor? Yes (probably). Is this distinction necessary? Yes. The more Canada's laws and culture drift away from Christendom (for good or bad) and Christian ideals the more the church will have to take a stand for what God has ordained and still submit to our government.
We live in a country where the divorce rate among believers is statistically equal the our secular neighbours. This must not be allowed to continue, it affects out witness which affects our Mission. Let us render to Caesar (or here, the Queen) what is Caesar's and keep God's gift to his people of sacramental marriage sacred.
Tony Jones wrote a blog post in January of 2010 stating that he believes that pastors should give up the right to perform legal marriages. For the benefit of those who do not know me (including Tony Jones) he and I disagree on most of the things he says, but in this case, I think he hit the nail right on the head. His post finally put into words something I have been trying to articulate for about two years. Here is where I have landed.
There are two kinds of marriage (thanks to Mr. Jones for giving them names) there is "Legal Marriage" and "Sacramental Marriage". Legal marriages then, are whatever the State (in my case Canada) says it is. In Canada, the legal definition reads:
"Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others."Legal marriage, then, is a contract. Entered into freely by two people who have decided to become legally married for whatever reason. A legal marriage is also relatively easy to end. Here in Canada, for example a marriage can be ended by three main means: 1) Adultery 2) Physical or mental Cruelty or 3) After having lived separately for a year. It's that easy.
Sacramental Marriage, then, as the name suggests, must conform to the biblical paradigm of marriage as set out by God and not legal authority. So then what is the Biblical paradigm? After a number of years, studying and pondering, I have come up with what I believe strongly to be the biblical paradigm for sacramental marriage. We know that God created sacramental marriage to be between a man and a woman in Genesis 2, but what many people fail to realize is that not only is sacramental marriage designed to be heterosexual, it was also a gift given to God's people (Adam and Eve in this case) therefore we can presume that sacramental marriage is to be between a Christian man and a Christian woman. these are the prerequisites: 1) Heterosexual and 2) Christian. Once those prerequisites are met, there are three criteria that meet the basis for a biblical marriage covenant.
1) Commitment: Obviously, we start with a desire to marry and a commitment on the part of both the man and the woman to be married. Practically, this manifests as the engagement and marriage vows.
2) Community: This commitment between the bride and groom is to be made and affirmed by a community. Practically, this would work itself out as the actual marriage ceremony being witnessed by both the body of believers the couple is a part of and family. This criteria is crucial since without it, any couple can simply take steps 1 and 3 and say: "In God's eyes, we're married" as an excuse for pre-marital sex.
3) Consummation: Also known as: "The reason we signed up for this". This one is simple, without consummation, there is no covenant, it's just plain Biblical. Not speaking, of course, to extreme cases where sex is not possible, but getting young couples to consummate their marriage won't be a problem.
Briefly then: For there to be a sacramental marriage, there must be a commitment that is affirmed by the community of faith and consummated by the couple for a covenant of marriage to exist.
With all of that said, where does this leave our loving couple and their pastor on the wedding day? Well we can't move on without mentioning Romans 13 and following the governmental authorities. In short, (again, this is in Canada) if a couple wants to be sacramentaly married, they must submit to legal marriage as well. Practically then, the couple would go to a Justice, become legally married, and then come to the church (or whatever venue) and have a sacramental wedding.
Is this method more practically complicated than the current setup? Yes. Will this mean that pastors who refuse this ability to solemnize legal marriages will also lose the privilege of for example, signing as a guarantor? Yes (probably). Is this distinction necessary? Yes. The more Canada's laws and culture drift away from Christendom (for good or bad) and Christian ideals the more the church will have to take a stand for what God has ordained and still submit to our government.
We live in a country where the divorce rate among believers is statistically equal the our secular neighbours. This must not be allowed to continue, it affects out witness which affects our Mission. Let us render to Caesar (or here, the Queen) what is Caesar's and keep God's gift to his people of sacramental marriage sacred.
River City Church blogposts pt.1
The following is a post I have posted elsewhere, in addition to my unique work here, I will post these theology posts from the River City blog as they appear.
In the first question we're posting at the River City Church blog, we're dealing with a specific verse and the subject of forgiveness, so let's start with the verse itself and get right into it.
“Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.” Luke 17: 3-4 ESV
The short answer here is yes…and no, however the short answer is incomplete.
As Christians, this verse calls us to forgive in a way that exceeds the cultural standards. The reason Jesus says: “Forgive seven times” is because in first century Hebrew (Jewish) culture, forgiving three times was honourable.[1] So, Jesus here is telling us to go beyond what is culturally acceptable and forgive completely. So in that regard, forgiveness is not withheld until repentance. This is not the end of the matter, however.
In Christian doctrine, we have two phrases called “Limited Atonement[2]” and “Unlimited Atonement[3]” I won’t bore you with a long drawn out explanation of each, but the Wikipedia articles on each are pretty good. In a sentence they are this:
Limited Atonement: Jesus Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross (His death) is limited in scope to those who are predestined to salvation and its primary benefits are not given to all of humanity but rather just believers.
Unlimited Atonement: Jesus died as a propitiation for the benefit of mankind without exception.
Each of these positions have strengths and weaknesses, and good solid evidence can be found for both in Scripture[4].
This has led to a rise in a third position which is relatively new and called “Unlimited Limited Atonement” which Pastor Mark Driscoll describes this way: “By dying for everyone, Jesus purchased everyone as his possession, and he then applies his forgiveness to the elect, those in Christ, by grace, and he applies his wrath to the non-elect, those who reject Christ. Objectively, Jesus’ death was sufficient to save anyone and, subjectively, efficient only to save those who repent of their sin and trust in him. This position is called unlimited limited atonement, or modified Calvinism (Death by Love: Letters from the Cross, pg. 171-172)”
All of that is background so that you understand me when I say this: As Christians, we are called to forgive people just as God has forgiven all of us through His son Jesus Christ, BUT for that forgiveness to be effective on the person who has sinned themselves, repentance is necessary.
Keep in mind as well that the verse says: “If your brother sins”. The term “brother” in this context is different than “neighbour”. Where neighbour would include all people, the term brother[5] specifically refers to the believing community.
In short, forgiveness is not conditional on repentance from the point of view of the forgiver, but in order for that forgiveness to be effective on or received by the sinner, yes, repentance is necessary.
Yours in Theology
-Kevin Seguin
[1] It’s also because seven is the biblical number for “total” or “complete” so Jesus was telling us to “Completely forgive”.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_atonement
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlimited_atonement
[4] Further reading on these terms will lead to discussions on Lapsarianism, Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism, these discussions are FASCINATING…really…
[5] Which, in context, also includes and could be translated: brother or sister.
In the first question we're posting at the River City Church blog, we're dealing with a specific verse and the subject of forgiveness, so let's start with the verse itself and get right into it.
“Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.” Luke 17: 3-4 ESV
The short answer here is yes…and no, however the short answer is incomplete.
As Christians, this verse calls us to forgive in a way that exceeds the cultural standards. The reason Jesus says: “Forgive seven times” is because in first century Hebrew (Jewish) culture, forgiving three times was honourable.[1] So, Jesus here is telling us to go beyond what is culturally acceptable and forgive completely. So in that regard, forgiveness is not withheld until repentance. This is not the end of the matter, however.
In Christian doctrine, we have two phrases called “Limited Atonement[2]” and “Unlimited Atonement[3]” I won’t bore you with a long drawn out explanation of each, but the Wikipedia articles on each are pretty good. In a sentence they are this:
Limited Atonement: Jesus Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross (His death) is limited in scope to those who are predestined to salvation and its primary benefits are not given to all of humanity but rather just believers.
Unlimited Atonement: Jesus died as a propitiation for the benefit of mankind without exception.
Each of these positions have strengths and weaknesses, and good solid evidence can be found for both in Scripture[4].
This has led to a rise in a third position which is relatively new and called “Unlimited Limited Atonement” which Pastor Mark Driscoll describes this way: “By dying for everyone, Jesus purchased everyone as his possession, and he then applies his forgiveness to the elect, those in Christ, by grace, and he applies his wrath to the non-elect, those who reject Christ. Objectively, Jesus’ death was sufficient to save anyone and, subjectively, efficient only to save those who repent of their sin and trust in him. This position is called unlimited limited atonement, or modified Calvinism (Death by Love: Letters from the Cross, pg. 171-172)”
All of that is background so that you understand me when I say this: As Christians, we are called to forgive people just as God has forgiven all of us through His son Jesus Christ, BUT for that forgiveness to be effective on the person who has sinned themselves, repentance is necessary.
Keep in mind as well that the verse says: “If your brother sins”. The term “brother” in this context is different than “neighbour”. Where neighbour would include all people, the term brother[5] specifically refers to the believing community.
In short, forgiveness is not conditional on repentance from the point of view of the forgiver, but in order for that forgiveness to be effective on or received by the sinner, yes, repentance is necessary.
Yours in Theology
-Kevin Seguin
[1] It’s also because seven is the biblical number for “total” or “complete” so Jesus was telling us to “Completely forgive”.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_atonement
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlimited_atonement
[4] Further reading on these terms will lead to discussions on Lapsarianism, Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism, these discussions are FASCINATING…really…
[5] Which, in context, also includes and could be translated: brother or sister.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)