One of the reasons why libertarianism is starting to commend itself to a certain kind of Christian — in ways that it never does in all those manifold areas where libertarianism is correct, e.g. regarding the manufacture, sale, and distribution of all widgets — is that it provides a convenient way of collapsing in the face of homosexual activism, without having seemed to have so collapsed.
Now we can just shrug our shoulders and say that government should not really be in charge of the definition of marriage. This has a major side benefit, in the minds of some, which is that now we don’t really have to stand up to anybody.
The problem is that a government that doesn’t know what marriage is and what marriage is for is also a government that doesn’t know what a government is and what a government is for.
The central engine of prosperity in society is the family, as God designed it, which means that at the center of the family is a man and a woman. This is the central fruitfulness from which all other forms of fruitfulness must come. Such fruitfulness, such prosperity generates property, and the government’s central job is to protect the pursuit of happiness, which, as we have discussed before, is the pursuit of property.
The government’s job is not to confiscate property, but rather to provide a stable environment in which which property can be acquired by the citizenry. A government which does its appropriate job will not lack for funding, but a government of the covetous, for the covetous, and by the covetous, will most certainly perish from the earth. A government which grasps at everything is in the process of losing everything.
In the basketball game of life, the government is not one of the players, but is rather the referee. The government submits itself to the rule of law, and adjudicates property disputes that come before it. Custody battles are included in this — Solomon famously decided the case of the two harlots and the baby (1 Kings 3:25). And there is no way that the government can ref the game of property disputes without knowing what a marriage is.
Now, that said, what is marriage? Scripture teaches that marriage is formed by means of a covenant vow, and that covenant vow is sealed by means of sexual intercourse. And by sexual intercourse, I do not mean any random activity that results in a sexual climax for somebody, but rather that infamous PIV activity that radical feminists view as the headwaters of all rape. One of the great ironies of modern life is that we have had at least a full generation of sex education in our schools, at the end of which time nobody is quite certain what sex might be.
If you have a covenant vow, but no sexual intercourse, you do not have a marriage. If you have sexual intercourse, but no covenant vow, then while you do have a one flesh union, you still do not have a marriage. Scripture does not mandate the form that the covenant commitments should take. In some societies it means signing a paper while in another society it could happen when the bride and groom throw their wineglasses in the fireplace. The Bible does not mandate the form of making a covenant, but it does require that such a covenant be made.
When vows were exchanged, but the union was not consummated, a divorce is not necessary — that would be what annulments are for. You are not ending a marriage, you are declaring that a marriage was never successfully formed. If there was sexual activity but no vows, that is called fornication. Repentance looks like walking away.
Because marriage necessarily results in property, and because the civil magistrate is necessarily involved in property disputes, it is necessary for the magistrate to have a definition of marriage that distinguishes genuine marriage from spurious marriage.
If “marriage” is going to be reduced to contract law, then the parties are in complete control of the terms of the contract. I can sign a contract for the delivery of 100 widgets or 1,000 — that is completely up to me, which is fine because widgets. But if marriage is reduced to at-will contracts, then there is no a priori reason for the magistrate to seek to interfere with a contract between mother and daughter, contracts for term limit marriages, rental marriages, and so on.
On top of that, what does the magistrate do when one of the parties in an illicit union repents? Say that a brother and sister get married (its okay, everybody, because he had a vasectomy and she had a hysterectomy, so chill), and the brother is radically converted and repents.
Does a Christian magistrate demand that he fulfill all his remaining contractual obligations? Why or why not? Discuss among yourselves.
Absolutely not. If it was never a legitimate (read: allowed) marriage by the law of God, there is no problem in ending the arrangement if one person repents.
First off, I agree with what you have to say about a marriage being a covenant vow. I also agree with your point about not being able to reduce marriage to a contractual obligation. That is all biblical and correct. But the question as to whether a Christian should use government force to define marriage from a civil point of view is a different question than what a Christian magistrate should do when one party in a contract repents and is therefore unable to fulfill their contractual obligation, at least I think. For example, let’s say two folks engage in… Read more »
Laughed, I did. (:
The problem with having a coercive government defining and enforcing marriage contracts is that coercive government cannot be relied upon to define anything because it is inherently immoral (excepting theocratic OT Israel). In any given scenario, in any action it takes, it is concerned only with serving its own self-interest, not in conforming itself to some absolute standard of morality and virtue. Only the free market can truly honor marriage. If you allow competing companies to form who specialize in establishing and enforcing marriage contracts, then those people whose definition of marriage conforms to the Bible can have their contract… Read more »
How is a covenant not a contract?
Cordially,
t
Just suppose marriage was done now as it was done in the days of, say, Abram and Sarai. If the government of Ur had anything to say about their union, we don’t read of it. And let’s suppose that back in those days, some collection of sodomites began to announce that they were just as married as Abram and Sarai were. What would the public reaction have been? They would never have gotten past the horselaugh stage. And that would have been the end of the subject. It’s the modern superstate insinuating itself into everything, claiming for itself the right… Read more »
“How is a covenant not a contract?” I don’t understand your question. Did I say anywhere that it wasn’t? “To the point the libertarians are making, government doesn’t need the power to define what marriage is in order to know what it is” Actually, that’s a good point, and one I wish I would have made earlier. No one actually has the power to define marriage except for God. When someone comes along and tries to redefine marriage to include sodomites, as Christians we can just say, “Nope, sorry. That’s simply not marriage.” But why should we make it illegal… Read more »
“How is a covenant not a contract?” I don’t understand your question. Did I say anywhere that it wasn’t? Just testing before commenting. A contract is between men. Yes there is the ‘earthly’ definition of ‘covenant’, but there is a Heavenly definition that is pertinent to the Christian. If you look at God and His covenant it is something else entirely different from human contractual relationships. Why? because God cannot break his end of the bargain or default on it. So, how is a marriage covenant different from a private contract? In the same way that God’s convenants are different… Read more »
“Just testing before commenting.” I don’t know what you mean. “…but when you argue for man-to-woman contracts without the covenant with God, then you have Houstonian problems.” I made no such statement. I’m assuming you’re making this point to dispute my position that marriage should be handled privately. If I’m correct, I guess that means that somehow, according to your position, the state must be involved in order for a marriage contract to also be considered a covenant in the Christian sense. Can you explain how this is so? Imagine a situation where a solid reformed Christian couple decides that… Read more »
We need to clarify that when Doug says that the civic magistrate needs to define marriage, he doesn’t mean that they have legitimate authority to define it autonomously, apart from God’s definition. Doug means they must have an operating definition in order to fulfill their role in regard to disputes involving custody and property, etc. Several comments suggest that people think Doug is saying the State has authority to freely define marriage to suit its tastes, which is not Doug’s point at all. Ben wrote: Only the free market can truly honor marriage. If you allow competing companies to form… Read more »
Doug et al — Where exactly is this “vow” requirement in the Word?
Man cleaving to his woman = marriage.
You changed from “vow” to “commitment” to just “covenant” halfway down this post.
If you define the act of cleaving as the marriage covenant commitment vow, ok then.
Many governments recognize common law marriages just from the reality of this cleaving
Exchange vows?
What was it Eve vowed then?
The woman answered and said, I have no husband.
Jesus said to her, You have well said, I have no husband:
For you have had five husbands; and he whom you now have is not your husband:
You think she exchanged vows with those first five?!
“If there was sexual activity but no vows, that is called fornication.”
Doug — what was that film you liked so much about the farmer who brought him over a lady what for to cleave unto, that you are so fond of?
I just can’t remember an over vow, when she called him into the house near the end.
Eric Stampher wrote: Doug et al — Where exactly is this “vow” requirement in the Word? Man cleaving to his woman = marriage. You changed from “vow” to “commitment” to just “covenant” halfway down this post. If you define the act of cleaving as the marriage covenant commitment vow, ok then. Many governments recognize common law marriages just from the reality of this cleaving Many governments recognize same-sex marriages too, so that’s not much of an argument. Doug does mention a “one flesh union” that is formed by sexual relations alone, but clearly this isn’t the same thing as a… Read more »
Eric, You said: The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said to her, You have well said, I have no husband: For you have had five husbands; and he whom you now have is not your husband: You think she exchanged vows with those first five?! Marriage in those days was highly ritualized. Here are some bits of info from Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the days of Christ by Alfred Edersheim From the Mishnah (Bab. b. x.4) we also learn that there were regular Shitre Erusin, or writings of betrothal, drawn up by the authorities…… Read more »
The real concern of libertarians in America is business and the denial of collective ownership which is implied by the interdependencies of our social and economic systems. Perhaps it would be libertarian to say that James Madison earned all his wealth even though he inherited land and slaves and all of the labor on the land was done by slaves. So Madison earned his wealth while his slaves could only earn being property. Perhaps Christians who lean toward libertarianism should ask if American Individualism has compromised their Christianity in some ways. As for marriage, yes, the government has a say… Read more »
Hi @Ben, I am trying to figure out what I think about the matter vis-a-vis the state. On the one hand there is the Christian covenant–this is beyond the reach of secular governments and ‘contracts’ strike me as a silly shadow of the covenant. On the other hand is the argument that marriage is the foundation of the family and ergo civil society; this merits its plank of importance to the civil-society–i.e. Christian government. Typing the above, I guess it comes down to the character of the people and (by extension) their government. A Godly people will have a covenantal… Read more »
@Ben
Whoa. Now that is some thoughtful analysis. A few concerns:
Do consenting adults have the moral right to create and divide up their children, simply because one of the spouses no longer gets tingles?
The only potential problem I can see with the discussion of marriage as a contract is that it reduces marriage to a civil matter and not a criminal matter. For example, is adultery merely the violation of a contract, or is it a capital crime?
Otherwise very good stuff.
Eric, if there wasn’t some ritualized formation of the marriage with the first five, how is it possible for Jesus to distinguish between the five men she had who were husbands, and the sixth whom she also “had” who was not a husband? Please don’t say she “cleaved” to the first five but not to the sixth. Unless she had penchant for picking the sickly, this is not credible, unless your conception of “cleaving” is nearly empty. And I doubt if she’d merely been a very unfortunate serial widow, that would have been something Jesus would have used for her… Read more »
Eric
“Sweet Land” is the movie you asked about.
@Katecho In a voluntary society, the insurance companies would handle enforcement (maybe requiring some kind of collateral at the outset). There would also have to be a court of final appeal, agreed upon by the insurance companies in advance. If one company failed to submit to a ruling (or failed to seize the collateral of a client), that company would lose its reputation, and no one would accept its contracts in the future. So there is much more responsibility than the current system, and the issue is whether material sanctions and custody preferences are adequate, or if there should also… Read more »
Jane — sounds like your argument is with how Jesus could say to her about #6:
“Your husband is not your husband”
Would you like to say Jesus was just joking about him being here husband?
Rick — how is the last one not her husband? —
Perhaps he was HINO (husband in name only).
Perhaps they had no cleaving going on.
katecho,
You found pronouncements from God and have labeled them prototypical exchange of vows?
Does that include your Hosea passage wherein the wife/bride (Israel) was an unwilling adulteress or (Gentiles) a disinterested people?
You will say, I hope, that His Spirit makes His bride interested & faithful, and at that point it is a willing union.
True.
But the point of this passage is it is against the will that the Spirit moves.
This is not a passage proclaiming the willing avowed partnership.
He didn’t say “your husband is not your husband.” He said the man you are with is not your husband. I am saying that there is evidently some distinction between being a husband, and being in a recognizable relationship with a woman and not being a husband, or else Jesus could not have pointed out that the distinction was in force in the woman’s current situation. I don’t see how this is possible without implying some sort of visible initiation of the “husband-wife” relationship. I’m really surprised you think there must have been “cleaving” going on in five serial marriages.… Read more »
katecho — re the Jeremiah passage, please note:
“this is the covenant which I will make …”
This is not a two-sided love affair, but rather a hostile takeover for the good.
But I admit — all good marriages should have that result.
katecho,
I take it Exodus 19 was the earliest “vow” you could find from Israel’s side?
So you want to say that Israel & God were not heretofore married?
katecho — the point is that with God, our marriage is happily His doing, and not a union we can or will choose to enter into.
The nearest you get is when we believe, with the faith and new heart He gives us.
The result is His Spirit in us — the penultimate cleaving.
Marriage in real live as well as the Bible = union / cleaving.
It is being intimate with the intent to stay with.
PIV could be evidence of the intimacy — but even intercourse is not required.
“Leave your father & mother” = dedication & devotion to the new object.
Fornication is uncommitted using.
No “vow” initiates cleaving — but only reinforces & celebrates.
Cleaving is evident to society all around, hence is organically covenantal.
“Leave your father & mother” = dedication & devotion to the new object. Fornication is uncommitted using. And how does this square with doing it six times within a lifetime? Dedication and devotion…for a little while? “Uncommitted using” as opposed to “you have had five husbands and the man you have now is not your husband”??? Jesus recognized five of these relationships as marriage, and one as not. Yet NONE was evidently dedicated, devoted and committed, with the possible exception of the LAST, which He did not recognize. I do not think He was measuring the existence (as opposed to… Read more »
OT:
ACK! Because-noun still gives me the willies.
Jane — you want to argue that she took out a marriage license those first five times?
Took 5 vows?
What, the council granted five divorces?
Jane — how old was she?
She recalled all those relationships with intensity.
Her man / men had failed, one after another.
Hence she came to know & feel that she herself had & is failing.
Her hope for this last one being a keeper was tenuous at best.
Hence Jesus put His hand round the bleeding wound.
Eric, all I’m saying is that Jesus recognized some difference between a husband and a not-husband. Some difference between fornication and marriage. Further, that difference cannot merely be that the five men “cleaved” to the woman, since they most evidently did not, regardless of who disappointed whom. If she was anything under 100 years old, those weren’t long marriages by any reasonable standard when you’re talking about a relationship that is supposed to be lifelong. That’s not cleaving, that’s more like stick-on fingernails. Therefore, the more natural conclusion is not that “marriage is fully realized in cleaving, even when no… Read more »
As a “libertarianish” conservative of the Rand Paul-esque stripe, I do have to say that this is a very good argument for the legitimacy of the role of the magistrate in marriage.
I might have sum re-thunkin ta do.
Katecho said: “From Ben’s past comments, it seems that Ben favors a completely and continuously voluntary association (in the opt-in and opt-out sense) which undermines real sword-bearing enforcement of any kind.” I have never said anything like that. In fact, I’ve refuted that notion of contracts in a voluntary society more than once on here. If people could just walk away from a contract without any consequences, then contracts simply wouldn’t exist. That would defeat the whole purpose of them. That would go for any kind of contract too, not just a marriage contract. I don’t know exactly how a… Read more »
One other thing I need to mention about contracts in a voluntary society: There’s no need to think that enforcement of contracts would have to include violence, even in the hypothetical scenario I previously described. In a voluntary society, I believe that economic ostracism would play a very large role in “encouraging” people to fulfill their contracts and keep their word in all areas of life. How hard would it be for some company to create a reputation management website with a ratings system like ebay, only that encompasses every area of a person’s life?
Lori & Sam had such a lovely wedding ceremony!
They really did.
And the wedding night — well I blush to say.
Twas the worst tragedy for all of us, really, when Sam was killed two days later.
But thankfully such a short covenant experience shouldn’t really be considered much of a marriage at all, don’t you think?
When Mel got engaged to Sally so quickly, we all were thinking: “Well, this won’t last.”
Yet Sally’s heart was in rapture.
None of us had the heart to throw cold water on it.
But who could have known it was Sally herself who had the affair not six months later.
And poor Sam is still stunned.
We’ve tried to explain to him that only six months doth not a marriage make.
He should move on.
to quote Doug from half a decade ago (http://dougwilson.wpengine.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/a-random-recommendation.html)
“The Lutheran preacher won’t marry them, and neither will the judge, and Olaf has to sleep in the barn. With that set up, you can enjoy the rest. The movie is called Sweet Land.”
Doug says he & Nancy watched it twice.
Psssst — no marriage vows! Just real cleaving.
Woman at well MAY’ve been divorced 5x for barrenness in reasonably short order.
Strict RC blogger John Wright used term “pervertarian” for those who want to impose (not just de-criminalize) perversion. Interesting how he, and some here, use “libertarian” as a bogeyman. I use “libertarian” rather loosely, to mean anyone who thinks governments should be a lot smaller, e.g. get out of education, parks, welfare–just defend life, liberty, and property against serious attacks.
Ben wrote: “If people could just walk away from a contract without any consequences, then contracts simply wouldn’t exist. That would defeat the whole purpose of them. That would go for any kind of contract too, not just a marriage contract.” I appreciate Ben clarifying his position on voluntarism. If he clarified this before, I may have missed or forgotten about it. So Ben favors opt-in voluntarism, but not an “opt-out of the consequences” voluntarism. It’s a one-way deal, unless all parties later agree to dissolve the voluntary arrangement. Got it. Ben wrote: “This would essentially be stealing, and in… Read more »
Andrew Lohr wrote: Strict RC blogger John Wright used term “pervertarian” for those who want to impose (not just de-criminalize) perversion. Interesting how he, and some here, use “libertarian” as a bogeyman. I use “libertarian” rather loosely, to mean anyone who thinks governments should be a lot smaller The term “pervertarian” seems to fit them rather well. Thanks. Impenitarian might also work. Or deviantarian. I agree with Andrew that “libertarian” or “conservative” can simply refer to a preference for small government, but both of these terms have become very loaded. Perhaps we could still distinguish “libertarian” from “Libertarian”, the same… Read more »
Eric, if your two little stories are supposed to lay out the consequences of my position, then at least we’ve discovered that I haven’t succeeded in expressing it so that you understand any part of it.
So with that, I shall plead nolo contendere and see you later.
Katecho, I define coercion as initiating force against someone else either to do them physical harm or take their stuff. Not a person on this blog would disagree with me that such violence is wrong. In the hypothetical example I gave, the man would be stealing from the woman by not giving her the amount she’s entitled to per the contract. Using force in that situation would be no different than if someone steals your bicycle, and you chase them down to get it back. This is morally acceptable coercion; it does not violate the non-aggression principle. (Personally, I think… Read more »
Hi Ben,
Who’d hire the police?
Hi Eric,
“Who’d hire the police?”
Simple. People who wanted it. :)
I don’t disagree, but the entire argument rests upon: “The central engine of prosperity in society is the family, as God designed it, which means that at the center of the family is a man and a woman.”
Please support this statement as universally true. If it is not, the rest of the argument does not bear weight against those who would disagree.