Ceremony or commitment?

By Nathan Brown

Figures from the US show 4 in 10 of babies born last year were born “out of wedlock.” The additional interesting dynamic to this is that teen motherhood is at the lowest levels for years and the big increase is among unmarried women in their 20s. It seems it’s part of a larger trend. An Australian study of young married couples has reported only 9 per cent of these couples had not lived together before marriage. Add to this statistic, the significant number of couples who choose not to get married at all and the sad realities of divorce and we have a picture of a society in which the traditional, legal forms of marriage are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

These trends pose some tough questions in relations to our church’s stand on marriage, particularly in relation to “discipline” procedures and the impact these have on the involvement on young people in our church.
Before we go running for the Church Manual to brush up on our censure procedures—thus excluding another young couple from the contribution they can make to our church—we need to ask ourselves some questions: Have we reached a stage or will we reach a stage at which we have to recognise that a traditional marriage ceremony is simply a fading cultural tradition and that perhaps our focus on such an event has been—or may become—misplaced?

Would we be better to focus on commitment between couples rather than the trappings of a white dress, a large church and a legal document? Are these trappings what we mean when we refer to “God’s plan” or is He more interested in the heart of the matter? Or do these things evidence the heart of the matter? In short, are we more interested in a wedding or a commitment?

It is unlikely Adam and Eve had a wedding ceremony we would recognise as such. Certainly, it would not be legally recognised in our society, due if nothing else to the absence of witnesses and a “qualified” marriage celebrant—the legal requirement for a valid marriage in my part of the world.

Jesus, when questioned on marriage, referred His listeners back to the story of Adam and Eve and the statement made by God at that time, “This is why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife and the two are united into one” (Mark 19:5). But the Bible does not limit this ‘becoming one flesh’ to a man and wife (see 1 Corinthians 6:16): “Paul did not limit it to married couples. Mere copulation, for him, makes ‘one flesh’… The truth is that wherever a man lies with a woman, there, whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally endured” (C S Lewis, The Screwtape Letters).

Undoubtedly, simply drifting into an uncommitted sexual relationship which then evolves into cohabitation is a poor start to a lifetime commitment to each other: a wedding ceremony can mark a significant moment of commitment. But there are many examples of weddings simply being a part of such a drift and certainly providing no guarantee that the couple will not similarly drift apart. Marriage can be an important life step but as it is practiced in our society it has become equally a social and cultural event.

As such, increasing multicultural influences and the decline of organised religion contribute to the decline of the traditional forms. Our society now affords unmarried couples similar legal relations to those formally married, perhaps recognising something of the commitment involved in such relationships—despite the lack of legal form and traditional ceremony.

It is not marriage as commitment that needs questioning or even as concept but marriage as a traditional, cultural form—of which we can even find variety in the Bible. Jesus urges, “Let no one separate them, for God has joined them together” (Matthew 19:6). Perhaps in a changing culture, we need recognise this choice some couples have made, question our insistence upon the uncomfortable suits, white dress and all the paraphernalia assumed to be the necessary ingredients of a "proper" wedding, and encourage their continuing commitment to God, each other and the church.

Comments

[Elaine]

FINALLY, this subject has been brought out in the open.

Any new situation that is participated in by nearly 50% of the population, cannot be ignored, and must be faced by the Adventist church.

For most of this world's history, marriage as we know it today did not exsit. Either it was commitment between the two individuals or else it was arranged, often sight unseen, by the parents. Stephanie Coontz in her "History of Marriage" covers this subject from recorded history to current times.

How does a public ceremony in a church give a stronger assurance of marriage longevity or is it the personal commitment of the two, who determines the validation of their marriage? Just as the two structure how they wish their marriage to function, there is no public ritual than makes it stronger.

Teenage or older adults' promiscuity should not be under discussion but the cohabitation, sometimes before or after engagement is what should be for discussion.

The arguments for pro and con should be supported by statistical studies in detail to inform us of this as well as its affect on the lack of, or success of future marriages.

Living together before marriage has only two outcomes: the people involved have discovered that this should not proceed to marriage; or those who advance to marriage, have discovered many of the problems in adjusting to housekeeping details as well as personality adjustments.

[cliff goldstein]

Great idea, Nathan. Let's let society, so in touch with the Lord, set the trends, and then as a church follow.

What didn't I think of that?

Sure, what we're looking for is committment between a man and a woman, not a wedding ceremony. I mean, it's either one or the other, right? And, if you have a committment between a man and a woman (why just a man and a woman? you know, Nathan, that lots of men are marrying men and women are marrying women, why are you being so bigoted?) then who needs a ceremony and a white dress?

Great idea!

Why didn't I think if that?

Besides, since all marriage is is a white dress and ceremony, nothing else, why bother with it at all? Why not outlaw it, Nathan. Yeah, that's it. Why not have the church get ahead of society (instead of in your case letting it lead us around by our noses) and push for outlawing a white dress and ceremony, since that's all marriage is, anyway?

Think too what outlawing marriage would do to the divorce rate? It would plummet, come to nil (after all, you can't have a divorce if folks aren't married).

And think too of all the children who are damaged for life, for life, because their folks divorced. If there were no marriage, and folks (committed now) just lived together, then when they split up, and destroyed the home, which would be a lot easier if they didn't have a white dress and ceremony to seal it, all those kids would not be hurt because it wasnt divorce. No kids would ever have to stuggle with pains of coming from a divorced home any more.

Great idea. Why didn't i think of that?

Instead of doing everything we can to try and strengthen marriage, we should follow society and question whether its utility in our day and age. Great idea for the church. That will only make home life better for children, only give them more stable environments to live in, and only give them more security. If we could just get rid of that white dress and ceremony.

Great idea, Nathan, great idea.

[Cliff Goldstein]

Oh, I forgot something too . . . How could something as old as marriage--you know, from Eden, before the fall--how could something that old have any relevance for our post post-modern society?

Also, too, going back to my idea of outlawing marriage. If we did that we could then ignore all those inconvenient statistics about folks who live together before marriage having higher divorce rates than those who don't. Again, just get rid of marriage altogether, and you get rid of that unfortunate statistic.

Plus, too, my good friend Nathan, I'm surprised that you could be so close minded that you have some qualms about "simply drifting into an uncommitted sexual relationship which then evolves into cohabitation."

Chill out, dude.

[Darius (statrei)]

We can never advance until we come face to face with reality. Adam was not married to Eve. Marriage is the union of two. What happened in Eden was that Adam was divided into two.

[Elaine]

The only cause of divorce is marriage.

The church HAS changed on divorce and remarriage in the past 50 years. Why should we be surprised that the church does accommodate to society's mores, and it always has?

Should we return to the church's position 50 years ago when divorce was only allowed for adultery by the "guilty party"? That really made sense, didn't it, determining who was the "guilty party." This focus on the physical maximized that as the most important part of marriage. The chuch could lose, probably 40% of its membership if all divorced and remarried members were disfellowshipped.

And should we follow the Bible command of marrying a widow to her brother-in-law? Why not? Didn't God command it?

Cliff, would you like that? Why not? Isn't divorce spoken of in the Bible even more than the definition of marriage?

Darius is right: the original couple began from a division of the first human, Adam. We haven't been able to copy that.

BTW, was Jesus' parents marriage ceremony with a pregnant bride? Should we refuse to marry such couples now if the bride is pregnant? Not if that biblical pattern is followed.

[Nathan Brown]

Rather than diminishing the significance of a marriage commitment, the formulation set out by Paul in 1 Corinthian 6:16 is a more profound view of the consummation of a relationship and would give a higher view of sexual relationships than that currently presented most often in church settings. I have nothing against the white dress get-up, if that is culturally appropriate to those involved—as it still is to most of us in the Western world and, especially so, in the context of conservative faith communities.
This is not about being lead by society today but recognising that aspects of our religious practice are primarily socially and culturally lead. When our "wedding formula" is or becomes a cultural relic, we should be prepared to see it as such.
Our focus should be on the commitment, not the form. Example: a university friend of mine was telling me about her parents and all her uncles and aunts, none of whom married in any traditional sense but all of whom have enjoyed stable, healthy relationships, raised families and and are all still together. We should be celebrating such a story. When a third to a half of marraiges end in divorce, a family story such as this is—sadly—somewhat unique and admirable.
And when we get to the hammering of young people in these "illicit" relationships in our more conservative churches, when the church board demands that they stop co-habiting before they can be accepted in the church, are we not working to pull apart what has been joined together? Even working against what in every sense—other than the "big church-white dress" party—is a God-recognised, socially legitimate relationship?

[Bob Rigsby]

This is astonishing. My bewilderment at what passes for “progressive” deepens. And yet, seems we ALL grow in our “bewilderment” at each other’s positions on lots of stuff.

But Wow…

This essay commits a classic blunder (in my opinion). Marriage clearly “doesn’t work” so lets… abandon it?? (another variety: Marriage clearly is broken so… GAY marriage is OK?) Can’t make the “mark”? Well, let’s DO AWAY with that mark!

Then, another blunder; associate YOUR alternative with commitment and love. Then when someone criticizes your alternative you say (very shocked and indignantly works best) “WHAT? You don’t BELIEVE in love and commitment?”

And does no one talk any more about Marriage as sacrament? Am I the only one who tries to explain to my kids that sex is SACRED? Is there ANYTHING in our culture that has a clue what that means?

Just an opinion here: any union that “commits -- while love shall last…” comprehends NEITHER.

Have we REALLY said that there is no biblical ideal for marriage? Just couple up however we want -- but please be “nice” about it??

In Old England, I’ve read that the marriage vows included the phrase “with my body, I thee worship.” Does our secular culture (the one which so draws and entrances progressives) have ANY place for that understanding? Is it any wonder that God compares the relationship He wants with US, in the very sacred and exclusive terms of our sexual intimacy in our own monogamous, for life, man/woman marriage?
(Pity poor Hosea! Gomer was just ahead of her time -- and Hosea too "old fashioned" and maybe "intolerant" enough to get distraught about it!)

Philip Yancey wrote a wonderful essay a few years ago titled “In Praise of Arranged Marriage” and he tells of a wonderful Indian couple he knows whose marriage was arranged -- and it’s one of the best unions he’s ever witnessed. (And please; I’m obviously not talking about abusive cultures, where women are treated as property…) Why? he asked them. We have no expectations of each other and realized that it would BE what we MADE out of it.

That perspective should teach us something...

[Raul Batista]

Much of mainstream adventism or christianity is sexist. It focuses on the perfect man-woman union, and excludes all others. There are others not so fortunate, the eunuchs the bible speaks of, the "unmarrying kind," the permanently widowed, or deformed, or permanently ill that prevents marriage. As more and more people find that an empty bed is not that uncommon or not such a tragedy, why is so much still being sung and praised about the man-woman couple. Additionally, if people want children, there are plenty of orphans waiting in the third world or right here in the usa. Talk about being truly selfless. Instead of having your genes passed on needlessly, do some poor third world deceased parent a favor, and adopt their lonely child.

Put yourself, for once, in other people's shoes. Think how they feel, how they live, how they think. Not everyone thinks like you. Not everyone can or wants to.

Think kindly of others that they may think kindly of you.

[Gary Krause]

Nathan, isn't there still some value in the public/social declaration of commitment--whatever the form/style that ceremony might take? Shouldn't we put as many safeguards as we can in place so that these relationships can't be entered into and out of with every change of whim? And what should the church do with "co-habiting" young people who regularly change those with whom they "co-habit?" You say that we shouldn't be "working to pull apart what has been joined together." But has there been any kind of process to acknowledge that God has indeed joined them together? We have rituals for every major life passage--and we have them for some pretty good reasons. Even the old-fashioned pre-marriage engagement period has value. At the very least it allows the prospect of the marriage to be "field tested" among friends and others before a final commitment is made.

[Elaine]

Bob and Cliff, prepare to be shocked.

"Sex is SACRED," yet
according to Paul (1 Corinthians 6:16): “Paul did not limit it to married couples. Mere copulation, (sacred copulation?) for him, makes ‘one flesh’… Do we wish to use that standard today? Shotgun weddings?

In the OT, if a man seduced a woman and wished to marry her, she had no choice if her father agreed and was paid fifty silver shekels. (The caveman routine.) Or in war if a man sees a beautiful woman, he may take her for his wife.
What standard should we live by today? Those are biblical standards, but none of us live by those, so how do we decide?

Ideals are great, but since not one of us begins to live up to the ideal, shall we begin to enforce marriage for a copulating couple? That was the correct thing in OT times, just as levirate marriage and polygamy.

How far back should Christians go in attempting to "restore" the original marriage (does anyone know for sure what it was)?

We would all wish our children were virgins before marriage, as we were. We do not demand "proof of virginity" as Deuteronomy calls for, and if found not to be a virgin, the girl could be stoned. Great respect for women, but it "takes two to tango."

When our children become adults they make their own choices, and we as parents do not abandon them or put a scarlet letter on them if they engage in sex before marriage, nor do we ask.

It's a charade: professing to be "above" the world, we ARE affected in every way by the culture around us, try as we might to avoid it.

As Nathan mentions relatives, I have an adult granddaughter, 30s, decided with her fiance to buy a house and live together. A year later they were married, and have been happy since celebrating their 3rd anniversary.

As for virginity, does anyone seriously expect a middle-aged widowed or divorced couple to retain celibacy until their marriage vows are made? Yes, ideally. But other than the two individuals involved it is nobody's business Does it really make a difference in their committment to each other or the longevity or happiness of their lives together?

These older "living together" arrangements are very common, often because of financial entaglements. Old people develop pragmatic, rather than idealistic approaches while hoping for idealism in their children. Keep hoping, the chances are few that those ideals will be met. Since we parents follow a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, how important is it?

Successful marriages are made on more than public vows. They are made between the two and only as good as those two people are.

[re:spect]

Mr. Goldstein illustrates the kind of dogma that has lead many open minded progressive people to leave the church altogether. If an open expression of ideas is so distasteful to officials of the church, then there is no hope. (This is assuming that he is the same Cliff Goldstein that writes all that obfuscation in the Adventist Review).

[Bob Rigsby]

Hey Elaine:
YOU know these discussions are hard for me -- but real. Because of my belief that God can and will save EVERYBODY, it's hard to call me judgemental. (you didn't do that...) My ideas no more make me "better" than you, than yours make you "better" than me!

But your post merely repeats what I hear all the time: who CAN measure up? So why try? Just make up your OWN ideal as you go along!

How many MORE sociologic studies do we NEED to repeat yet again that kids do BEST in a loving home with mom AND dad present. POVERTY has some real predictors; babies born to young, less educated, and UNMARRIED moms.
FINE! We've (well, not me but "you") SOLD the "fact" that marriage is an ancient social construction -- a relic of the past which only serves to further the abuse of women and the dominance of men. So guess what? Fewer people marry! And divorce is far more "easy" -- casual even! And more kids end up with single moms! And those kids are MORE likely to continue the cylce, be in poverty, be less educated, and on and on. Those are simple facts. Why those who deride marriage don't step up and OWN those consequences is typical of "progressive" thought. Lets just keep blaming, say, all those "sexists" out there; or the "religious right".

It should HORRIFY feminists that our culture is so hypersexualized! Boys yes, but especially girls. Read Kathleen Parkers essay of today! Who ends up suffering? kids. Desperate for fatherly affirmation, they seek it elsewhere and there very beings are demand and diminished. Problems with self esteem; confidence; basing their entire personal value on their "sexiness". That is a tragedy of enormous proportions!
And the "dumbing down" of marriage plays right into this vicious and downward cycle.
I'm not saying throw people in jail; disfellowship; ostracize; not associate with lonely or different or whatever.
By what is so wrong with upholding an IDEAL? Just because no one is able to meet that ideal, doesn't mean we should abandon it does it?

Now about 1 Cor 6:16 -- seems the contrast is between flesh and spirit; it's like he's saying SURE -- you can join this woman physically, but that's just flesh. It's not a REAL union untill it's of the "spirit" -- as it will be when you are with the Lord. .. I don't know, never wrestled with that text before...

And Raul: assuming your remarks were for me, can you think of a better tool to put yourself in someone elses shoes that the belief that ALL will be saved? And where on earth did you get the idea that I want everybody to think like me? Heavens! The day my friend Elaine starts thinking like me is a sad day; I would miss the "old" Elaine!

[cliff goldstein]

I figured if my friend Nathan can put something so provacative out on the Spectrum Blog, he could take little heat, without someone ranting about how their sensitivites have been hurt and thus they have to leave the church.

The Obfuscator (and the Alembicator too).

[Elaine]

Bob, no disagreement whatsoever with your comments about teenage, unmarried parents.

"How many MORE sociologic studies do we NEED to repeat yet again that kids do BEST in a loving home with mom AND dad present. POVERTY has some real predictors; babies born to young, less educated, and UNMARRIED moms."

No one, either, will disagree with this.

But, there are plenty of kids who grew up and did very well raised by a single, divorced woman who was NOT a teenage, pregnant female, but did all the "right things" by marrying first. Surely, you know plenty of such people, don't you? I have one in my own family who did all the proper and ideal requisites before marriage and 7 years later becoming a mother. Unfortunately, the marriage was irrevocably broken, but as a full-time working mother she raised a daughter than any parent would be more than proud to claim.

Finishing an education before marriage, and ideally, not marriage until mid or late 20s has a much higher chance of success. Marriage is for mature adults, and today with educational requirements, that works out to mid-20 marriage.

Few SDA parents, I would venture, have teenage marriages or pregnancies in their offspring. Those are the only ones that we have any control over, but even then, not a lot. When a child, even in the 20s, decides to marry, the parents may or may not have much say, and they can only hope they have prepared this child for life.

What about the ever-increasing delay in marriage, and more singles (51%)living alone than ever in our history? Because in most cultures and past times, marriage was always looked forward to. Today, there is no longer stigma in remaining single.

Currently, I have three adult children, two are living alone, and one first married at 42, and one son, 48, has never been married, and there is little chance that he, a straight guy, will marry as he has decided that living alone is not the worst thing in life, especially in observing the repeated divorces and broken relationships of his peers. Everyone should not be married, and because the church has, for all its history, consisted of "couples" except those in convents or monsteries, these moderns have defined their own way of living, which often does not mean marriage.

Elaine, the pragmatist

[ronald Osborn]

Nathan, we are probably more in agreement than disagreement. I think, however, that your article shifts problematically and confusingly between three words or ideas, "wedding", "marriage", and "commitment".

Obviously there is nothing sacred about all of the cultural paraphernalia of a "wedding". And if two people have made a life-long "commitment", with or without a piece of paper, I would say that means they are "married" in the truest sense. I think this was your basic point and so far I agree.

But I would challenge your suggestion (if I have read you correctly) that the broader culture is tending toward a rejection of the formality of "weddings" in favor of "heart of the matter" relationships of "commitment". What I observe is just the opposite: an obscene and highly commercialized obsession in society in general with all the material trappings of "perfect weddings", yet very little concern for what a wedding might actually mean. (Watch reality television shows, like "Bridezilla" and "The Perfect Wedding" and you'll get the picture. And may God preserve us all from women like these.)

Why, then, do you link "white dresses" and "formal" weddings with "religion" and "Christianity"? Isn't the (diamond encrusted Gucci wedding) shoe precisely on the other foot? My grandmother was married to my grandfather wearing a simple black dress surrounded by close family and a few friends in the living room of their home. Their wedding has lasted for over 60 years. Elizabeth Taylor, Wikipedia reports, was married in 1991 on Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch in a spectacular wedding gown for the 8th time. It didn't last yet it is Taylor's perfect "wedding", not my grandparents solid "marriage", that our broader culture relentlessly tells us we ought to aspire to. That, I think, is the REAL story "wedding" and "marriages" that needs to be told.

So basically, yea, I dig your radicalism Nathan: Down with wedding dresses! I say it is high time someone pricked the consciences of Christians who are blowing wads of money playing that whole image and status game, just like everybody else. I think, though, that you can say "Down with weddings!" in a way that more clearly says "Up with REAL marriage!" at the same time.

[Sean]

Huh? What? Am I actually reading Christians write essays and responses that denigrate and dismiss marriage?

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

I think Nathan is brave with his brash post and provocative wording. I also really enjoy reading Cliff Goldstein. I remember reeling (still do) when I read his article on seventh-day darwinians in the review. Such brash writing is rare in our world... more common is qualified language that subtly slights. I admire both Nathan and Cliff for being forthright and bold with your button pushing pieces. Don't ever change.

My read on Nathans post was that it made sense. Quite provocative sure but he made his point well. I immediately thought of baptism as an analogy. Baptism itself has very little to do with the essence of baptism. Likewise marriage is but a public expression of a deeper commitment.

It is extremely significant symbolism sure but it is symbolism nonetheless which is devoid of meaning if it remains merely symbolic.

Saying that most marriages are devoid of real commitment and pointing out that some persons chose, because of the state of marriage today, to commit to each other without marriage does not denigrate marriage as much as point out how compromised the institution of marriage has become in our society today.

[Autospaniel]

Where is God in all of this again?

Not one word about what God would want--just a reflexive burning of everything that is sacred.

The last time I saw contrarianism so confused with "intellectualism" like that, I was in college.

Nobody who is honest (in the least) would ever argue that the breakdown of the traditional family is a good development for society.
You have to either be facetious or malicious to make such a statement--nothing else.

Please provide us with empirical evidence to the contrary if you have any.
Anecdotes are not evidence. (Gasp!)

That is like saying that HIV does not cause AIDS; or that the Earth does not revolve around the Sun; and worse than saying that the Earth is flat (since people actually had reason to believe that was so).

P.S.
I have to agree with Mr. Goldstein on this point: Enough with the whining! Please spare us.
If a good intellectual challenge makes you cower in fear, block your ears and go running for the exits of the church, then you were going to leave anyway.
It's not the arguments that made you leave--it's your inability to parse and be honest about them.

(An aversion to facts and numbers and a hankering for the pliable and intangible--like feelings, emotions, conspiracies, insinuations and name-calling.)

[Autospaniel]

Here is an article one should read if you think this "Smart New Paradigm" has any legs at all:

The Return of Patriarchy
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/users/login.php?story_id=3376&URL=http://www.foreignpolicy.com

None of this is "new" and it all will come to its natural end--all by itself.

Here is an inferior summary (condensed article):

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-03-13-babybust_x.htm

That's all there is to it really.
You should ask your library to request the entire article if they do not subscribe to Foreign Policy Magazine. They can get it for you--usually for free--from another library.

[Autospaniel]

Click on my name to get the link to the article. The software parsed it.

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

Honestly I'm not impressed by the bold fonts and pseudonyms. I wonder if some of the folks writing comments actually read the post by Nathan. I have trouble seeing how anyone could argue that marriage in our society is a sacred institution.

I believe that some of you are confused as Nathans criticism isn't directed at the institution of marriage in the Biblical sense but rather marriage as a cultural institution. More specifically, our failing as a culture to approach marriage as a sacred institution.

And honestly for all the political talk such an argument like the one being promoted by Nathan is quite traditional. He is defending monogamous Godly (Christian even) marriage. seems pretty "conservative" to me...

[cliff goldstein]

Nathan, all joking aside: of course a ceremony qua ceremony no more makes a marriage than a recipe for a Ben and Jerry's Cheery Garcia makes for a clogged artery. Could anyone really, seriously, think that the KIND of ceremony matters? Sure, it's all about committment, but how do you actualize something like "committment." I know a lot of married couples whose marriages went through some rocky times but who, because they believed that they had made a covenant before God, then worked through it and are doing great today.

I am convinced that, in many cases where there was divorce, had these folks actually took their vows seriously, actually believed that their marriage was sacred before God, they would have gone the extra mile in trying to make it work, and it many cases it probably would have worked. But since divorce is so easy (heck, if you got tons of donors, and a private jet or two, just go to Guam and let a Guam court take apart what "God has put together") and it's over. Now, there are some cases where nothing is going to work, period, and I acknowledge that, but in so many cases, if they had this idea that legally and before God they had made a committment, and were duty bound before God to try and make it work, then so many more would make the effort and in so many cases it would work.

What is committment other than a strong emotional bond, right? It's a feeling, right? And, man, can feelings waver, can feelings change. Sometimes you need something transcendent over you to keep you steady when the endorphines are temporarily sputtering out, and committment fades, if you know what I mean? But if I am reading you right, someone has sex, becomes one flesh, and make a committment to each other, that's all that matters? Please, that might work if were made of silicon chips, but not estrogen, testosteone and dopamine.

Throwing out "traditional" marriage because we have been mucking it up makes about as much sense as throwing out Jesus because of what the church has done in his name for almost two thousand years (and as a Jew, I know whereof I speak). Well, it's 3AM and I gotta get to work.

Shame on you, Nathan, you actually pushed my button with this (not that I would know anything about pushing folks buttons, eh, mate?)

[Autospaniel]

Mr. Ramirez,

Is "impressing people" common around here?

I said what I said because I "felt" it--much like anybody else here.
Text formatting allows me to write the way I speak--which is very important in order to convey what is in my head.

Occam's Razor and all...

[James Coffin]

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 outlines what appears to be a relatively easy God-ordained route to divorce. Later, Jesus stated (Matthew 19:1-12) that such divorces were never God's intention but were "permitted . . . because your hearts were hard." It seems that when outlining through Moses His expectations, even God created less-than-ideal standards that took into account the cultural norms of the day. He seems to have tried to move people in a desired direction by giving the best and most achievable/realistic standard for that situation and that time.

Most of us have no problem with such an approach having been taken in the past. But can we imagine God ever lowering His standard to reach a culture that has slipped back to the performance levels of yesteryear. Instinctively, I say No. But intellectually I think it worth considering. If we reach a point where, despite all our advocacy of traditonal norms, no one but no one conforms, should we seek to salvage what we can of the commitment principle and redrive the stake of standards at a different point? Or should we hold out for 100 percent compliance to the norm of what I consider a more enlightened era? Remember, the accommodation for divorce allowed through Moses followed a spiritual decline that went all the way from Edenic perfection to selfish barbarism. Just how far has our culture declined?

Nathan Brown is essentially asking us whether some form of accommodation might be needed once again. And I think we need to wrestle with the question--not only about this topic but about many others as well.

I agree with Gary Krause that there is merit in our rites of passage and our cermonializing of life's grand events. Wasn't it Aritstotle who talked about the law of impression through expression? I believe that marriage, baptism, ordination and other such ceremonies serve as an anchor point of resolve, a reminder of a commitment made. So before giving up the cause and acquiescing to the inevitability of lowered norms, I would like to try an all-out effort to so reinvest such ceremonies with meaning that even today's society would see their benefit. But I think we'll be more likely to achieve that goal if we can say that we have honestly looked Nathan's question squarely in the face and have found that solution not to be the best option.

[Joselito Coo]

Needless to say, commitment is far more important than ritual. However, what Nathan includes in the "ceremony" of marriage appears problematic to some. I'm not sure what else he meant by inviting us to take another look at the "traditional, cultural form" of marriage. Wish he'd explain himself further that we may understand him better.

[Elaine]

James, you sound like another pragmatist?

Now in my 9th decade, I have seen more than a few marriages break up. Last time I checked, it took two people to make that committment. Only one of them can break it, permanently.

There are as many reasons for divorce or separation as there are humans. Thankfully, the Adventist church no longer must decide who is the "guilty party," a policy long demanded and repulsive in the way it delved into the most private lives of its members.

Neither party in a marriage is a perfect judge of character, although a hasty marriage precludes that possibility greatly. Even so, people are living much longer than ever in history, with the result of 50-year marriages and more are not uncommon. People grow, and change, and when one changes and the other refuses to grow and accept the other's growth, they may stay married in the public eye, but not at all in the ideal sense of the desirable state.

If we would do less judging of other people's choices, and do more to promoting in our own lives the type of marriage we would wish for our young people, we might then have room to pontificate. Until that time arrives, or someone thinks it has, we should cease our blaming and do more healing of broken hearts by our compassion.

[Raul Batista]

Bro. Goldstein: I'm not sure where else to address this concern so why not here?

I study the Sabbath School lesson faithfully every day & I must complain that it is disilusioning me beyond belief. The only good thing is that even this downer of a quarterly will also fade into the past, a few weeks from now. The next quarterly looks like it's going to be a real winner. For that, at least, I am grateful.

Please be so kind as to make future quarterlies more uplifting. It's important to study every book in the bible, but please focus on the more positive and uplifting ones in the future.

Also, why include quotes by Camus and Sartre, Voltaire, et al, in an adventist publication? Ellen White would be horrified if she were alive today.

If people want to read the existentialists and/or other infidel authors, they can go to their public library. The Sabbath School lesson is no place for even a phrase of any of these authors.

Especially appalling was the quote from this quarterly, that "Suicide is the only truly valid philosophical question." (I'm paraphrasing it and probably got a word or two wrong.) Did you ever think that some adventist or christian readers may be having a daily battle with thoughts of suicide? They seek solace in the Sabbath School lesson, only to find this damaging piece of existentialist advice.

Thank you, nevertheless, for your ministry. It is appreciated in spite of your many critics, myself included. God bless.

[re:spect]

Don't worry Mr. Goldstein and autospaniel. I have already left. I was merely pointing out what I considered an antagonistic attitute that permeates some of Mr. Goldstein's writings.

I believe that people who officially speak for the church should be respectful. Mr. Goldstein was not in that particular post.

[Cliff Goldstein]

Raul-- someone on the Spectrum Blog actually reads the Quarterly?

Man, I know the world is coming to an end.

Heard your complaints. Understand them, though I must say that I don't quote Camus or Sartre because I necessarily agree with them. On the contrary, often I use the quotes to show that we have something so much better and more hopeful to offer.

[Nathan Brown]

If a young couple were to come to me and ask my advice on how to begin their relationship in a "formal" kind of way, I would highly recommend some kind of event that would involve promises to each other, God and their family and friends—a "proper" wedding—but with as little of the "obligatory" wedding paraphenalia and nonsense as possible. If for no other reason, I would recommend it on the basis of about to be 10 years since my wife and I did just that.

But in a society where this is becoming increasingly counter-cultural, should we be expecting those whose relationships have begun in other culturally accepted ways to convert to our "culture" as well as our faith? Should we be big enough to accept that our traditions have been influenced by a fading culture and find ways to work with current culture?

Brother Cliff: Glad to get you fired up. It's good to have someone bugging you for a change.

[Bob Rigsby]

Elaine/Nathan et al…

Here’s an analogy which bears close similarities and is also directly related… Reread Nathan’s first line. In my work, I get to help women having their babies by placing an epidural. Now you would be utterly amazed at the difference between a 15 or 16 year old having a kid (often, with the “kid having a kid” the “dad” isn’t even there -- and often not involved at all…) and a mom of say 28, or 35, with a husband present where Both are VERY invested in that kid; and, not incidentally, each other. Out OF their love/commitment for each other, this kid arrives.

Let me just assume that all agree that the first situation is “not ideal” while the second is more so. Suppose I took it upon myself to (upon finding out how much harder that kids life WILL be -- exceptions that we ALL have seen notwithstanding; to say nothing of the harder life for the mom…) try to educate her and the world of this reality.
“YOU heartless man! That kid didn’t make that choice -- you are so mean! Welcome that child -- don’t be so judgmental! Don’t be so intolerant! Why are YOU forcing YOUR values upon THAT poor mother and child! Let them BE! You are so self righteous!”

So lets say I shrug my shoulders and say “You’re right; my bad. Sorry to ‘offend’ you. Go ahead and do what you want. Wrong of me to interfere. It really is none of my business.” (besides, who DOES want to painted with that brush of “insensitive, intolerant, right-wing holier than thou” label….)

So let me ask you: Who REALLY cares about that young girl??
the one who has embraced the “culture” of that girl that says BE FREE! Liberated! don’t let anyone else tell YOU how to live your life! Don’t let yourself feel “judged” by those religious right types! We LOVE you just the way you are -- and endorse whatever YOU decide to do!

--OR--

The one who endorses marriage as a better way (flawed as that may be) for both her AND whatever babies might flow from her couplings.

The society that says it “cares” about that mother and that baby, yet enables the very trouble they find themselves in, cannot be taken that seriously I don’t believe. How CAN they logically expect to have it BOTH ways?

Radical feminism has not owned up to the consequences of it’s convictions. And in the process, they betray badly the well being of the very ones they pretend to care about. How long will the charade continue? (In the name of tolerance and love and freedom of course…)

You do realize that we are talking about what the “religious right” calls THE CULTURE WARS. And are pilloried for it. And I do not buy the idea that culture has fallen to this, therefore we are somehow obligated to “dumb down” what we KNOW is “best” for families and cultures; for what they have boldly asserted is that they offer a SUPERIOR ethos -- calling on the MORAL values of tolerance, and freedom of expression, and “do your own thing” and love while it’s “convenient”... So, since when do Christians follow “culture” down into the abyss of what they KNOW (“studies have shown”) is blatantly (wow; I managed to insert a great Cliff Goldstein word!) counter to the interests of BOTH women AND children??

Does no one remember the ridicule Dan Quayle got for his “Murphy Brown” comments? The Left delighted in calling him a bigot and extremist and mean and judgmental and sexist and on and on. Because he advocated what EVERYONE knew in their hearts (and “studies” confirmed) was true -- and best for BOTH women AND children. Later, without fanfare, the Left began to adopt that same stance; though without apologies to Dan. So they “won” the “PR” battle, embarrassed a political enemy, and did it all at the expense of the very women and children they pretend they care about!!
Sweet...

Now it’s not hard at all to blend this thinking toward an ethic of the value of marriage. This is not a culture of ethos, but a culture of irresponsibility (God -- I sound like one of those religious right!) -- and guess what? Women and children bear the brunt of societies experimentations…

PS: Elaine… I’m kinda surprised you “fell” for that 51% study… If ever a study was “rigged” to demonstrate exactly what the study WANTED to demonstrate (that marriage is on the outs, and therefore not worth the effort) this is it.

PSS: Nathan… I dare you to go a Black Christian church and try to “sell” your idea. Black pastors are at profound odds with gay marriage because they SEE that is is an attack on traditional marriage and the black family structure has been savaged by this cultural drift toward marriage being irrelevant. How’s your marriage idea working out for the much larger fraction of unmarried girls having babies among their congregations?

It seems incredible folly to endorse a policy which helps create the very thing which you say concerns you..

[Joselito Coo]

I sense that Nathan is trying to be more constructive or transformative rather than progressive in regard to traditional cultural forms. I go along with that. "Be not conformed... but be transformed!"

I would hope we don't retreat into apologetics for its own sake. Just looking back, defending tradition, and the status quo. Cliff often sounds like that's what he's trying to do. For Cliff's encouragement, I still follow the traditional SS Bible Study Guide in the class that I lead. Wish there's more help though in exegeting the assigned Scriptures and allowing authors with a different perspective to write the lesson. George Knight's series of commentaries was a blessing as I had the opportunity, in Africa away from home, to read and interact in my mind with each author who are among the finest Bible interpreters and teachers in our church.

To some, the alternative to Adventist apologetics is to look sideways--pick and choose from other traditions--be eclectic. Is this a better approach? Isn't this a retreat to the status quo as well as the first?

I do wish we can be more constructive and transformative rather than merely being "progressive" or "traditional".

[Autospaniel]

Or could it be that the "tradition" was right all along?
Is that ever an option?

I swear I got bored with iconoclasm by the second time I laid eyes on it.
I grew up among a considerable number of youth, for whom this was the norm. Many of them are now worse for the wear--after such an exhilarating ride.

But it is the height of self-aggrandizement to think that every institution or practice that we inherit is borne of a lack of forethought or rational thinking.
Mr. Rigsby is correct. It is the "women, children and the poor" (the "clobber categories") that bear the full brunt of the wild social experimentation. Because you'd better believe that the rich, white, educated women are getting married (even as they discourage it in others)!

My initial response was to Elaine's statement:

"The arguments for pro and con should be supported by statistical studies in detail to inform us of this as well as its affect on the lack of, or success of future marriages."

I was stunned.
It was as if someone had said to me one morning that he was awaiting concrete evidence and further studies to show the necessity of light for photosynthesis.

The second thing also pointed out is more common--and that is the widely quoted "50%" number. I truly await evidence of this.
How would one even begin to calculate such a number?
I don't buy that statement for one minute simply because it does not stand up to basic mathematical scrutiny. It is highly suspect and likely wrong.

It would have been less shocking if the queries had been opened by emergence of new and compelling evidence suggesting otherwise--new evidence suggesting that the marriage model was ineffective. But in this case, they take the form of the eleven year old who keeps asking "Why can't I have some beer?" or "Why can't I drive?" over and over again.
The kid is not really interested in the evidence.

My question is whether or not we even need evidence to do otherwise.
What other commandments of God will be subjected to scientific scrutiny before we obey them--or aspire to with His help?

Who do we really think God is?
I mean this of no particular poster; but this passage always strikes me as apt--
Romans 1:
"21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Closely followed by this:

"25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

What part does unconditional surrender play in all of this?
I'll tell you that this is my biggest spiritual battle, and that the worst times in my life--the times when suicide was a serious option--were when I decided that God''s will for my life had to be pre-approved by me before I would sign off on it. It all had to make logical sense before I would heed to His will for my life.
What miserable times to were (and continue to be).

The Bible is very clear on this--
Hebrews 11:
"8By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

7By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

6But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

What part did scientific scrutiny play in Abraham's obedience? Noah's?

I have a brain God expects me to use to the best of my ability--and with His help.
When God requires obedience of us, we must obey and leave the skepticism behind.
God is way bigger than you or I will ever be.

[Elaine]

Bob, you wrote:

"Now you would be utterly amazed at the difference between a 15 or 16 year old having a kid (often, with the “kid having a kid” the “dad” isn’t even there."

FYI, no, I would not be amazed at all. How do you possibly assume my amazement?

That is not the question nor the solution. No way, no how, would I ever condone teenage sex or pregnancy. However, I do not close my eyes to what is going on in the world around me and you, too, have been made aware that teenage pregnancy rates are going down for several years now. Why?

We both know that marriage and pregnancy should be for mature adults. Do you have a suggestion for securing that? Yes, with our children they are given the best, usually SDA education, warm and supportive home life and all the trappings of a good Christian home.

Now consider those millions of teens who have none of that. Yes, some are able to rise above it, but have we helped them to do so? Or, do we stand ready to condemn them for the consequences of a very dysfunctional homelife with no good role models or assistance?

Autospaniel, you questioned the 51% of single persons living alone. I am one of those. That included all single, divorced, widowed and never-married individuals currently maintaining a "single household." If you dispute that, check it out, as it was a public survey conducted recently and received wide publicity. Singlehood does not carry the stigma today that it once did.
Just look around in most SDA churches and you will likely find that there are a lot of grey heads--widowed, divorced, or never married.

"The arguments for pro and con should be supported by statistical studies in detail to inform us of this as well as its affect on the lack of, or success of future marriages."

Nathaniel spoke of many such relationships that functioned just like marriage in every respect, sans the license. That is, of course, anecdotal. But if you wish statistical studies, go for it.

Just to repeat again: I AM NOT ENDORSING EITHER TEENAGE MARRIAGES OR PREGNANCIES. But, as there are probably more than 50% cohabitating ADULTS prior to marriage, if someone has a remedy, speak up or forever hold your peace.

It is amazing that few have addressed Nathaniel's original comments and have rather reverted to the catastrophe of teenage promiscuity and/or pregnancy. Are you unable to separate that from CONSENSUAL SEX BETWEEN TWO ADULTS? Or, do you believe that teens and adults should be treated all alike? At least in the civil realm, there is a distinction. Evidently, for many they are both the same.

[Elaine]

By faith, Abraham.....

Yes, but he also pimped his wife, didn't he, and was a polygamist. A good role model?

His son, Isaac, followed his father's example and also said Rebekah was his sister.

Abraham's nephew, Lot, who had a "wicked wife" turned into a pillar of salt, offered his daughters to be gang-raped, and they eventually got their revenge by making Lot a father and grandfather at the same time. Good role model?

By faith Jacob--the deceiver?

By faith.... David---an example in his marital adventures?

Shall I continue?

[Autospaniel]

Continue? If you wish.
Who knew Abraham had faults?
That is a non-sequitur.

Read Romans 4:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%204;&version=9;

"1What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

2For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. "

So there you go.

Now,

The "51%" number that I dispute is the so-called "divorce rate".
If you meant that 51% of single people live alone, I would not dispute that.
It would stand to reason that 100% of single people "live alone" by definition; since in popular terminology even unmarried people who have love interests are not "single".

What exactly is the crux of the issue here?
What to do about cohabitation before marriage?
I don't know. What do you "do" about outright disobedience to God?
Are you saying that just as how human stubbornness caused God to enact a "get-out clause" to marriage, so too should human stubbornness demand a "get-out clause" from the "no sex before marriage" regime?

Where do expect to find this new get-out clause? Do we simply make one up?
The original post said that God Himself specifically laid out guidelines for divorce. This is true. We can find this in the Bible.

Where now, will we find God's specific guidelines (in the Bible) for "permitted fornication" now that we have decided we no longer care about obeying God in that area?

Are we interpreting this text to mean that because God gave us an "out" to marriage, then we are entitled to yet another free one for every new low society throws at us?

Why are we charging headlong after society anyways?
Why can't we be--and demand--different? Better? Is that not what we are called to be as Christians?

(The funny thing is that if I had said the same thing about War and Social Inequity the reaction...well, you finish the sentence...
The funny thing is that while it's now popular to say--about sex and cohabitation--that "everybody's going to do it anyway so let's just get over it," Jesus Himself--the postmodern "Uber Guru"--said about the poor that they would always be with us. Should we now look for an "out" from our obligation to feed and clothe them? After all, no matter what we do...)

So what do we do about ("inevitable")pre-marital/extra-marital cohabitation?
The same thing we do about any sin. We call it by it's right name, try not to do it, and warn others not to do it as well. We can even try to help each other avoid it altogether.

Nothing is wrong with marriage. Something is wrong with people.

[Nathan Brown]

In some of the situations in which friends have "lived together" before or in place of marriage, the invitation to move in or to find a shared place of residence works as an alternative-form marriage proposal and the actual moving in is something of a form of commitment in itself. Perhaps these events are not viewed with quite the gravity of a formal wedding but if we as a church were to teach our young people the significance of such a step, perhaps it would come to be seen in this way.
Imagine if we were sufficiently adaptable and accepting as to offer pre-moving-in-together (meaning, pre-public commitment) counselling and that these couples would trust their church community sufficiently to make it a public announcement, allowing friends and family to offering their support and blessing—and even have a commitment party that to those of us not hung up on traditional forms would look a lot like a wedding anyway.

[Elaine]

"The "51%" number that I dispute is the so-called "divorce rate".
If you meant that 51% of single people live alone, I would not dispute that."

If you will recheck what I wrote, it did not say "divorce rate" but single-person households.

"So what do we do about ("inevitable")pre-marital/extra-marital cohabitation?
The same thing we do about any sin. We call it by it's right name, try not to do it, and warn others not to do it as well. We can even try to help each other avoid it altogether.

Nothing is wrong with marriage. Something is wrong with people."

That evades the question with a non-solution. Calling "sin" by its right name is no solution at all.
Since the cohabiting couple seldom ask permission (don't ask, don't tell) what should the church do besides calling it sin? We are all sinners, but should the church point out each and all of its members sins? Is the church in the "judging" business" of interrogating its members or prospective members?

This is beating a dead horse as where is a solution for those who have already sinned? Public confession and repentance? Rebaptism? Suggestions, please.

[Autospaniel]

Elaine,
Then you should have asked for a solution specifically.
In that case, the solution to sin is--as always--Jesus. That much we know (repentance and surrender to be exact).

1 John 1:
" 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

The rest of us can only discourage it (sin) in ourselves and others.

As for the point about singles in the church, I am not quite sure where you are going with that then.
They exist and have their own problems--just like married Christians do.
That in itself really doesn't have much to do with marriage.
If you are arguing for a better place in the church life for voluntary singles, then I would agree with you. Just so we are clear though, with the marriage rate well into the 90% range, voluntary singles will always be a minority.

Mr. Brown,
"Moving in" is not marriage--not even close to it; so much so, that such arrangements always fare worse than marriage on average, and those that result in marriage also fare worse after the papers are signed. That is how inferior they are.
Marriage is not a post-modern "expression of private love"--but rather a serious, permanent contract between God, the couple and the community.

Anyone who is going to dismiss a formal marriage as a "piece of paper" is very likely to miss any tenuous semi-formal pretensions to significance ("Commitment parties", patches etc.) that we try to craft for people in the church who choose to move in together without first becoming married.

That said, why would any Christian wish to give their "support and blessing" to such proudly sinful arrangements? "Commitment parties"?
I hope the church never sinks to that level of rebellion against God.

And finally, the fixation with disparaging formal wedding ceremonies is a red herring. Millions of people forgo ceremony when becoming legally married.
I remember a woman who got married at Wednesday Night Prayer Meeting in 20 minutes. No forewarning--nothing. I never saw it coming, but it worked.
Most of the others trek down to the courthouse and get it done by an officer of the court. I know people who have done so.
So anyone who sets up "hassle" as an excuse for not marrying is simply being dishonest.

[Sean]

Perhaps we should be less concerned with making excuses for unbiblical behavior and more involved in compassionately pointing people to a better, transformed life in Christ.

[Autospaniel]

You see the problem is that this is directly selling people down the river.

What is the point of the church bending over backwards to normalize extramarital cohabitation?
What are we trying to achieve by this?

No matter what we the church say to make such practitioners feel good (Is that not the goal these days?)
about their sinful behavior--it will never be acceptable to God.

So they may stay in the church out of "appreciation for our accommodation" only to find out on Judgment Day that all along it was God who they ultimately had to answer to--not the church.

Ezekiel 33:
" 6But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand."

How can we look people in the eye and teach them to disobey God--just to make them "like" us or to "feel good" about themselves?
Are we so engulfed in warm feelings that we neglect God and His authority altogether?

Poor Lot. He was so accommodating that he couldn't get one friend or in-law to follow him out of Sodom. They laughed at him.
Look at Eli. He was so lax with his children so as not to create tensions with them that he lost both of them.
We need to teach people that their first obligation is to God--not the church and that a church rebuke is the best of the consequences for such behavior. It could be much worse without repentance.

There can be no compassion without standards.
(Click on my name for a 35-minute discussion about standards and compassion.)
"Compassion" is not the same as laxity and permissiveness.

[Joselito Coo]

I love your comments, Autospaniel!

It's becoming clearer to me, I hope, what bypassing "traditional cultural forms"--of commitment rituals--means to Nathan.

"... the invitation to move in or to find a shared place of residence works as an alternative-form marriage proposal and the actual moving in is something of a form of commitment in itself," Nathan wrote.

It's not for me to judge since I may be the only one here who comes from another culture and I'm pretty traditional myself. Let me say though this "new" proposed arrangement is not exactly a novel idea. Just wondering if one of the party's rights--the woman in particular--may not be violated instead of being protected. Does she have more to gain or lose as a result? Cultural sanctions have been put in place for a reason. This is true even in biblical times and we may be judging Abraham, Isaac, Jacob... and Paul wrongly, accusing them of being "sexist" because we have failed to understand them in light of their own cultural traditions but from our own myopic post/modern view point.

[Elaine]

"le mieux est l'ennemi du bien." Voltaire

"The perfect is the enemy of the good."

[Joselito Coo]

Not sure if I can buy Voltaire. Here's a better one, Luke's alternative to Matthew's Jesus: "Be merciful even as your Father!"

[Autospaniel]

Well Elaine, it's really out of my hands. If only "good" were "good enough" for God.

Matthew 5:
" 48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

He's willing to help us become perfect, but we have to submit to his authority over our lives. While "old-fashioned", it't still the only way to receive the gift of salvation.

[Kent Kingston]

I think Ronald Osborne's comment came the closest to a sensible view on this discussion. We should, as Christians, be mounting a critique on the materialist splurge weddings have become. Not only do they feed our worst impulses as acquisitive Westerners, they obscure the commitment which should be central.
What may be missing from the discussion, however, is the social aspect of marriage. Marriage is not simply a private arrangment between consenting adults - I believe the rampant individualism that feeds this perspective is largely responsible for the high divorce rates in the West [insert peer-reviewed data here]. No, marriage is so important that it should have the public support of the extended family and the broader community. Marriage should not only be a serious event where the couple says "I do"; it should also be an event where the family and community says, "We approve of this union, we pledge to support it, we hold this couple accountable to their vows." Surely this is what is symbolised by having all the rellies present at the wedding, by the giving of gifts and by the bride's parents having to fork out.
There is a time in the traditional ceremony where the celebrant asks for the congregation's approval of the marriage - "speak now or forever hold your peace". No-one ever speaks out (except in romantic comedies), although they might have grave reservations about the match. Perhaps those who might have spoken out feel guilty that they haven't said anything privately to the couple earlier and feel that now it would be too embarrassing - and it's "none of my business anyway". None of your business? I suggest that the marriage of two people that you love and care for IS your business, both before the ceremony and once they've said the I do's. (Of course there is a fine line with meddling/interference here)
I believe that some kind of wedding ceremony should be there to underscore these issues. I don't particularly care whether it's a "white wedding" or some other ceremony that the participants will take seriously. I have difficulties with AutoSpaniel's assumption that a traditional-style wedding is somehow God-ordained. There are many kinds of wedding ceremonies in the world - I'm sure most of them can be blessed by God (I'm not sure about the scuba or skydiving wedding though).
Should the government have a role in the form of marriage registry forms? Don't know - still trying to work through that one.
One thing I think the church needs to be crystal clear on though: there is no such thing as sex before marriage, because sex IS marriage (as previously highlighted Biblical examples demonstrate). Thus, if a couple think they are ready for sex, I'd be asking them if they're ready for marriage. Younger and older singles in the church should be given a clear-cut reasoned message - don't have sex until you have made a lifetime commitment to one another in the presence of your family and/or friends; ie, those who will support your relationship. In a society where serial monogamy has become the norm, Christians need to have a clear and Biblical response.
I don't think Nathan's efforts are an attempt to trail along behind mainstream society. However, society shines a critical spotlight on the institution of Christian marriage and forces us to re-examine the institution it has become. The results of our re-examination should not be dictated by society but by solid Biblical teaching.

[Autospaniel]

Mr. Kingston,
I am not sure where in all my commentary here you got the impression that I think traditional wedding ceremonies are "religiously ordained".
As a matter of fact, I specifically said that they were not needed--only a marriage license.

I am not sure that "extravagant weddings" is the highest, most pressing issue of our present time.
In fact, cohabitation is way more common--and even egregious--than extravagant weddings.

[Elaine]

An interesting twist on marriage from the Washington Post:

Married couples with children now occupy fewer than one in every four households--a share that has been slashed in half since 1960 and is the lowest ever recorded by the census.

Marriage with children has become an exception rather than the norm, and it is also becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent. The working class and the poor, meanwhile, increasingly steer away from marriage, while living together and bearing children out of wedlock.

"The culture is shifting, and marriage has almost become a luxury item, one that only the well educated and well paid are interested in," said Isabel Sawhill, a marriage expert and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Marriage has declined across all income groups, but it has declined far less among couples who make the most money and have the best education. These couples are also less likely to divorce. Many demographers peg the rise of a class-based marriage gap to the erosion since 1970 of the economic posperity that followed World War II.

"We seem to be reverting to a much older pattern, when elites marry and a great many others live together and have kids," a demographic trends analyst wrote.

In recent years, the marrying kind have been empowered by college degrees and bankrolled by dual incomes. They also are older and choosier. College-educated men and women are increasingly less likely to "marry down"--that is, to choose mates who have less education and professional standing than they do.

Maybe it's an economic situation that is behind marriage trends, after all.

[Victoria Bresee]

What a lively discussion! While I've certainly have enjoyed reading all the comments and differing viewpoints, I can't believe the value of the timing of Nathan's original post for my own personal challenging relationship.

If my partner and I are able to find ways to negotiate through our cultural differences, that include the concept of marriage, how it is performed, whether or not it is a sacrament or legal financial contract, which ancient sacred scriptures to look at to define it, how it can be terminated, and much more, I may share some of what we end up with.

As I was going through a very sad divorce 12 years ago, it seemed that it was obvious that the sacramental" "sacred" part of our marriage had gone through closure and we took some comfort in knowing that God had seen how hard we had both tried, even with professional help. But, what dragged on and on were the financial hurdles and red-tape, dealing with the "legal" contract part of dissolving a marriage in Arapahoe County, Colorado.

I was very envious of a fellow seminary student from Africa that told me that in her culture, all she would have to do is walk her husband back to his childhood home and say loudly outside of it,"Mother-in-law, I am giving your son back to you." It made me wonder if God had a whole staff up in heaven that kept track of all the different customs or filings of paperwork in each village, county, or country around the globe. It didn't make sense to me that in the eyes of God a person would be free to remarry after a few days in one location, while someplace else it might take a year, depending on the culture and the government. It does seem to me that in America, the sacrament of marriage and the civil contract are too interwoven.

That mess certainly has come up over the issue of gay marriage. It is really backward that in many areas it is OK to have the legal relationship, but government officials talk about the need to preserve the "sanctity" of marriage. What is considered "sacred or a sacrament is none of the government's business!

[Elaine]

It's the economy, stupid!

Harold Meyerson in the Washington Post today explains it:

'Family Values' Chutzpah

"Reporter Blaine Harden took a hard look at the erosion of what we have long taken to be the model American family -- married couples with children -- and discovered that while this decline hasn't really afflicted college-educated professionals, it is the curse of the working class. The percentage of households that are married couples with children has hit an all-time low (at least, the lowest since the Census Bureau started measuring such things): 23.7 percent. That's about half the level that marrieds-with-children constituted at the end of the Ozzie-and-Harriet '50s.
And I don't recall a single episode in which the family had to do without because Ozzie had lost his job or missed taking David or Ricky to the doctor for fear he couldn't pay for it.

Which may explain why the Ozzie and Harriet family -- modified by feminism, since Harriet now holds down a job, too -- still rolls along within the upper-middle class but has become much harder to find in working-class America, where cohabitation without marriage has increasingly become the norm.

Taking into account all households, married couples with children are twice as likely to be in the top 20 percent of incomes, Harden reported. Their incomes have increased 59 percent over the past 30 years, while households overall have experienced just a 44 percent increase.

But its message was sounded loudest and clearest on elite college campuses, whose graduates were nonetheless the group most likely to have stable marriages. Then again, they were also the group most likely to have stable careers.
They enjoyed financial stability; they could plan for the future.

Such was not the case for working-class Americans. Over the past 35 years, the massive changes in the U.S. economy have largely condemned American workers to lives of economic insecurity. No longer can the worker count on a steady job for a single employer who provides a paycheck and health and retirement benefits, too. Over the past three decades, workers' individual annual income fluctuations have consistently increased, while their aggregate income has stagnated. In the brave new economy of outsourced jobs and short-term gigs and on-again, off-again health coverage, American workers cannot rationally plan their economic futures. And with each passing year, as their level of economic security declines, so does their entry into marriage.

The party of family values? Please. If that's the banner they wish to wave then they should certainly make Rudy Giuliani, who couldn't bestir himself to attend his son's high school graduation or his daughter's high school plays, their presidential nominee.

meyersonh@washpost.com