The Church of You: Weddings
The Church of You, as I explained in my last post, isn’t tied down by traditions and rules. After all, how can you achieve true fulfillment if you’re going along with the crowd? One of the places the Church of You excels is in the area of marriage ceremonies. In this we are simply accepting the reality that the traditional wedding is a dead end. I can’t think of how to express the modern wedding ethos better than the way the good folks at Non-Religious Weddings do: “What you choose to include in your wedding ceremony should always truly come from your heart and not from habit, obligation, or fear of what someone else might think or pass judgment on you about. It’s always best to live in the truth . . . your own truth.”
Live in your own truth—that’s what we’re all about here at the Church of You. It used to be the case that a wedding was a ceremony in which the Church affirmed the union of a man and a woman before God, with members of the community as witnesses. It was a solemn occasion, with sacred responsibilities laid upon the shoulders of the bride and groom. The fact that they were a couple was not the important fact—the fact that they were bonding themselves according to the strictures of Christian dogma was.
I know, bummer, right? Nowadays most of us recognize—even in fussy religious churches—that a wedding is all about the bride and groom. Writing your own vows, having friends sing your favorite songs from the radio, showing a slideshow of the beautiful couple right there in the sanctuary—even some of the dullest churches are waking up to the plain common sense of the Church of You. The anti-church crowd is way ahead of the curve, of course. Check out this wisdom from Non-Religious Weddings’ “secular humanist minister and wedding officiant”: “I often tell couples that producing a wedding isn’t much different than producing a stage play or a movie. The bride and groom are the stars of the show, and the guests are the audience. Other members of the wedding party and officiant are the supporting cast.”
Who can compete with that enlightened view? Let’s wake up, church people. If we don’t keep up with the modern way of doing it, pretty soon nobody will be having a church wedding anymore. That’s one reason the Church of You opts for ceremonies to suit the tastes of our precious engaged couples. Whether you want a Hawaii-themed wedding or an airport wedding or even a California Country Club wedding, who’s to say you should stick to the way weddings have always been done? “After all,” note the people at WeddingVendors.com, “it is your day so why shouldn’t you have it all your own way?” Indeed.
We’ve come a long way from the days when people who wanted to get married either had to submit to the authority of a church or get a second-class marriage before a civil servant. Nowadays, humanists and other bands of spirit-minded agnostics are considered organized religions, and hence are authorized by most states to perform marriage ceremonies that have the look and feel of a religious ritual, but without all that blather about God and sacred responsibility. Further, even the requirement that a wedding officiant be remotely “religious” is under attack. Witness the efforts of an atheist threatening to sue the state of Nevada unless he is allowed to conduct weddings without any religious affiliation whatsoever. This guy feels aggrieved because he can’t play preacher, and by golly, he’s not going to take it any more. That’s the Church of You spirit!
So for a wedding that takes all the ritual of churches and bends them toward the celebration of the wonder of You, come on down to the place that has its priorities in order. After all, shouldn’t everything be about you on your special day?














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top44 Comments to “The Church of You: Weddings”
Without expanding, I’d just like to say that it’s a rare Christian who can do satire well.
Report comment to moderator
Shame on us all for letting this whole trend just sneek up on us. What did we let distract us away from uncompromisingly proclaiming the holy sacramental nature of the marriage covenant? Dont everyone raise your hands all at once on that question.
I know no church will retain or keep the acclaim of men if y’all keep pushing that strident shibboleth: Marriage as holy covenant between one man and one woman for one lifetime.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe we gotta git back to proclaiming those nasty absolutes. You know, Statements true for all people at all times everywhere.
Not gonna win too many friends with that one, either. The same folks who validate “your own personal truth” are the ones who cringe most at the thought of Adam and Steve exchanging rings.
This “personal truth” stuff is quite the slippery slope, no??
Report comment to moderator
I read this just last week, which I think juxtaposes nicely versus the church of You:
“The mood of a wedding service in church is often far removed from its spiritual significance. Sometiems it seems that the most important person at the ceremony is the photographer, that the rules of etiquette are more important than the words of the service, and that somehow the idea that it is the ‘bride’s day’ turns the occasion into a sad display of ego-expansion.
It is such a pity when a Mystery becomse nothing more than a mere ceremony . . . . The flowers, the dresses, the bridesmaids, and the photographer should pale in comparison with the real task at hand, which is to present a decision– a human and fallible decision– into the hands of God and ask Him to create the miracle of married life.
If the Mystery is not the focus of the activity, the vainglory of the world is quick to fill the vacuum . . . .
Three occasions stand out in my memory. In the first, the mother of the bride arrived for the wedding rehearsal fifty minutes late, carrying one of those rather tedious middle-class books of wedding etiquette, exclaiming that she wanted the wedding to be just ‘like this.’ It wasn’t.
On another occasion, I was telephoned by the bride’s mother . . . . It was quite obvious that she regarded the church as a sort of wedding shop at which she simply ordered the things she wanted . . . . She didn’t want crowns at her daughter’s wedding . . . . We had crowns.
On a third occasion, a marriage consultant . . . told me that she was going to put a rose bower right over where the couple would stand, and that she wanted piped music from various show tunes to ’set the mood.’ She got neither wish.”
– From “Bread & Water, Wine & Oil” by Archimandrite Meletios Webber
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think a wedding officiated by a civil servant/ justice of the peace type is necessarily a “second-class wedding,” even for Christians. There is nothing wrong with a quiet civil wedding, in which both parties (recognizing, of course, the significance of faith in their new relationship) get married and then get on with the more important marriage rather than a large religious wedding.
Report comment to moderator
I much prefer the civil ceremony. It was wonderful to not have to coordinate our schedules with guests, only with the few to whom it really meant something. I was not nervous. We both enjoyed it tremendously. We don’t need a pastor or someone else’s sermon to make it a Christian marriage.
Report comment to moderator
A mentor couple told us while we were planning our wedding that a wedding is a party you throw for your friends. True to a point I guess. I’ve always felt Dr Laura was right about weddings being the only day in the life of most gals where that gal is solely in charge. The focus on the “radiant bride” mirrors the focus Christ has on his Holy Bride, the church. Anything beyond that truly makes a mockery of it all.
My wife and I were older than most on our wedding day and paid for it all ourselves. Too often I’ve heard stories not about Bridezilla but about MIL or Motherzillas who come in and want in the most helpful, loving way to assume C2 responsibility for the entire ceremony. (c2 = command and control).
Report comment to moderator
Nice satire Tony, and I totally see where you’re coming from! How funny that the atheists won’t be smart enough to understand your excellent satire!
Like you, I don’t think we should let those dirty atheists and agnostics get married at all. Only good, God-fearing Christians ought to be allowed to get married in our Christian nation!
In fact, I think we ought to put all the nasty atheists, humanists, secularists, Catholics, Jews, pagans, liberals, homosexuals, Democrats, and agnostics in some sort of camp-like area – a “concentration” of them in a camp of some sort would be ideal.
Maybe then we could educate them again about Jesus – a “re-education” if you will. A program where we can wash all the bad atheistic thoughts out of their brains. A good old-fashioned brain-washing would do them a world of good! And, it would make the Baby Jesus smile!
Praise the Lord!
Report comment to moderator
#8: Wow. And I thought I woke up cranky today.
Try decaf.
Report comment to moderator
Looks like “Brent” has chosen sarcasm over contribution. How original for a blog commenter. Sorry dude, that doesn’t impress the crowd here.
Anyway, I’m friends with an agnostic couple who picked their church out of the phone book. The PHONE BOOK!. Really, what WAS the point? They could hae just done it at the Hyatt. And the pastor actually agreed to marry them! Sheesh!
Report comment to moderator
8
sure made me laugh!
Report comment to moderator
If I were a non-believer, I have to say I’d find this column pretty snide and offensive. As a believer I still find it snide, but not so offensive because I’m not the target of its mockery.
News flash: not everybody ascribes to the evangelical world view. For them, marriage really isn’t a “sacred vow” that needs to be witnessed by a church community. So why mock them for not treating it as such?
For secular folks, marriage is basically a declaration of and celebration of two peoples’ decision to spend the rest of their lives together. Essentially a big party with a little bit of ceremony thrown in. Given the frame of reference they’re working under, I don’t see why that’s worthy of mockery.
Report comment to moderator
@John M and @Donna J – I’ll bet you’re both a couple of liberal militant atheist terrorists. *looks closely at pixels*
I thought so! Get thee behind me, Satan!!
Don’t listen to those false Christians, Tony. You and I, we know the real score. We’ll get to watch and laugh while the Lord burns them for all eternity.
Isn’t it great to be washed in the blood of The Lamb?
Report comment to moderator
Why Brent, whatever makes you think this is satire? The Church of You understands that unless we call all unions marriage, and further assert that they are equivalent — regardless of the worldview in which they are rooted or the authority of the person presiding over them — then someone is liable to have his feelings hurt.
And the last thing we want to do is hurt feelings. So a Church wedding is a church wedding is a wedding of two unbelievers in a church is a wedding in a bar is a wedding performed by a guy who got his bona fides off the Internet. It’s all the same in the Church of You, just so long as you aren’t offended.
And as you cleverly point out, anyone who thinks otherwise is a bloodthirsty theocrat.
Report comment to moderator
@Jonny (#4) – “the real task at hand, which is to present a decision– a human and fallible decision– into the hands of God and ask Him to create the miracle of married life.”
That’s kind of funny when you consider the statistics show a higher divorce rate among Christians than among others. It seems that God may be doing more damage than good.
Report comment to moderator
Barry – 15
YOU WRITE: “That’s kind of funny when you consider the statistics show a higher divorce rate among Christians than among others. It seems that God may be doing more damage than good.”
Divorce statistics are faulty at best – many people who have become involved with a Church were not Believers when they divorced, most stats don’t give the difference – Many people say they are Christians and are unable to define what that actually means, or have a completely different idea, which is not Biblical. So to make the assumption that most Christians represent the higher divorce rate is not factual.
Report comment to moderator
Well Victoria, I’ve seen other Christian publications taking this statistic seriously, but even if there is some error or problem with the methodology, that still doesn’t speak well for God “creating a miracle of married life.” If this were the case I’d expect to see much different statistical results.
Report comment to moderator
I see evidence of the problem with satire. Too often those who should be challenged to seriously think about the issue being discussed respond with sarcasm and simply dig in their heels. Of course non-believers can be married. But only Christians can have a Christian wedding and marriage. The thing that sets Christian marriage apart is not the couple themselves but the Christ Who unites them and Who is the focus of their wedding and marriage. And it seems to me that the “church of you” has little interest in making Jesus Christ the Center and Object of anything they do. (It must be admitted that we who love Jesus Christ do not keep Him Central all the time. And, we, not Jesus, are responsible for our failures.)
Report comment to moderator
Barry – 17
YOU WRITE:
“Well Victoria, I’ve seen other Christian publications taking this statistic seriously, but even if there is some error or problem with the methodology, that still doesn’t speak well for God “creating a miracle of married life.” If this were the case I’d expect to see much different statistical results.
Whatever publications take as their stand has nothing to do with accuracy when it comes to real Believing Christians who have divorced.
Many people profess to be ‘Christians’ which in fact don’t know what the term means – Statistics mean nothing when it comes to survey’s -
“Speak well for God” – who are are you to say what speaks well of GOD, man sins if he so inclines himself to dishonor his body or mind or behavior in anyway shape or form – it’s man’s choice, it certainly isn’t GOD’s choice that man sin -
Report comment to moderator
Barry,
Archimandrite Meletios did not say “the real task at hand is to take a human decision and dump all responsibility for it into the hands of God and force Him to create the miracle of married life.”
No- blessed married life is the result of the couple who present their decision to God struggling in mutual obedience to relinquish their selfishness, their egos, and, through this kenosis- this self-emptying, to conform themselves to the image of God and to draw closer to Him. It’s a synergy between God and the married persons. Married persons who refuse to empty themselves for each other and take part in this synergy will fail, to some extent, in this venture, not through God’s fault but through their own.
Report comment to moderator
Should have written, above: “It’s a synergy between God, the Church, and the married persons.”
I would note two further items, as well:
(1) Children, the fruit of marriage, also contribute to this struggle, as the married persons empty themselves not only for the other but for their children. This is why the Church has traditionally refused to bless marriages in which a couple intends to remain childless.
(2) Since at least the 4th century, the Church has traditionally recognized only two states of existence (or vocation): the married life and the monastic life. The “single life,” giving rise to the very real potential for a self-indulgent, self-centred life, is a relatively new phenomenon and one which, because of its lack of self-emptying and obedient qualities, ought ideally to be avoided.
Unfortunately, Tony and those who promote the church of YOU would seem to turn not only the wedding, but the marriage itself, into nothing but a socially-recognized state of self-gratification. Sad.
Report comment to moderator
Jonny,
What do you mean by the “monastic life”? If you mean literal monasteries, there’s nothing in Scripture about them. (I know, I know, “tradition.”) There’s a very real potential for a self-indulgent, self-centered life in marriage too. It of course does not make for a good marriage, but the potential is there. I’ve known quite a few couples who want to wait many years for children because of such reasons. All of us, married and single, are called to put others above ourselves. None of us are to live lives of self-indulgence (though I fear that most Americans, married and single, are guilty of such). I really think older men ought to be busily telling today’s younger men, “Take a wife,” because that’s the only way to avoid a generation with a large percentage of singles. (It’s not the women’s responsibility, but the men’s.) But meanwhile, turning singles to monasticism isn’t a good alternative, unless you mean something different than that term usually means.
(In Chicago, I lived with another single woman in a poor black neighborhood, and our home was open to neighborhood kids who wanted to come for a few minutes or a few hours–within guidelines, of course. It wasn’t at all “monastic,” but I believe it was godly singleness, nonetheless. I’ve had a harder time finding such a role in Nashville; I’ve tried a few, including foster care and an inner city ministry near my home, but they didn’t need me or weren’t a good fit. Currently my ministry is driving seniors to the doctor, and the ministry simply doesn’t use me as much as I’m available.)
Report comment to moderator
Tony said, “We’ve come a long way from the days when people who wanted to get married either had to submit to the authority of a church …”
Good point, but even that falls short of the personal submission by the bride and groom to God’s authority.
What amazes me is that the true meaning of marriage has essentially become lost on this generation. People think it is about romance and feeling good. And so as feelings go, so goes the marriage.
Holy matrimony at its core is a VOW before God and witnesses. It is a promise to be together until death. That’s it in a nutshell.
I hear so many people give a reason for divorce that “the love was gone”. God says to “Love your enemies”. How much more imperative is it then to love your spouse? Love is a decision and a practice. Feelings come and go. True love should be for ever. God’s love is not the same as a worldly self-centric love.
This is a primary difference between a marriage enjoined by man and one joined together before God. It is the responsibility of churches to remind people of this. But I rarely hear it. And as a result Christian marriage fare no better than others.
Report comment to moderator
23
The love is gone could mean one thing to one person and another thing in a different situation. Perhaps that is a woman’s only way to say that she is being abused. Abused women aren’t likely to say the real reason. If an abuser says that the love is gone, you don’t know what he means. He might mean that his wife won’t put up with abuse anymore, or being treated hatefully, ingored, cut off financially, whatever. You may not know “so many people” well enough to really know their situation. Many people have been sexually molested in childhood and are not able to negotiate a marriage in adulthood. They may only be able to say ” the lov eis gone.”
Report comment to moderator
But Reg, a person has to be able to say more than that to be biblically eligible for divorce. The Bible simply does not grant a divorce for that reason. (I know, I know, you read a book that says the Bible is translated wrong. That was adequately addressed on a different thread yesterday.)
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
I checked my Bible thoroughly and was unable to find anything at all about driving seniors to the doctor . . .
I say that a bit tongue in cheek, but you already know where I’m coming from– no need to rehash the godly tradition vs. man’s tradition vs. sola scriptura deal.
All I’m saying is that the Church has, for centuries, found marriage and monasticism to be commendable paths to holiness and that non-monastic singleness is a relatively new phenomenon. Yes, I do mean monasticism in its ancient sense (either eremitic or cenobitic) but, perhaps, not in the way that many folks in the West tend to think about it (ie. Friar Tuck, et al.).
You state an interesting conclusion that “turning singles to monasticism isn’t a good alternative.” I’d query as to why you think this. Frankly, I often pray that God might grant the monastic life to at least one of my children– perhaps it’s selfishness that goads me to this prayer, but I know, then, that prayers for my spiritual well-being will be constantly raised to God on my behalf by that monastic.
– Jonny
Report comment to moderator
Reg, Could “the love is gone” be code for “I am being sexually abused, please somebody help!”
I suppose it is possible. However, the biblical standard is that marriage is a VOW between two people. That is the most fundamental meaning of marriage.
If you divorce for any reason, then you break a VOW before God.
Can we at least agree on that point? After that, people will do what they do.
Report comment to moderator
27
Where are wedding vows in scripture? I not saying that we don’t make commitments when we marry, but where are wedding vows in the Bible?
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl
But you inadequately comprehended it again, yesterday!
From whence cometh “biblically eligible for a divorce?” The bible does not give reasons for divorce. That is up to the couple. The bible says not to stop behaving like you are married without a legal divorce. The bible says not to put away your spouse except for adultery.
Report comment to moderator
Jonny,
The idea of singles living in a communal life away from the community is what I have in mind by monasticism–sorry, I don’t know what any of your categories mean. But I think it’s a bad idea to take any group of people and “cloister” them out of society, whether that’s babies in day care, elderly people in nursing homes (unless they need the kind of care family simply cannot provide, like an Alzheimer’s patient), or single people in their own communities. We all are part of the body, and should BE part of it, not isolated from it. For instance, a friend of mine in New York was getting sick and was bothered that she may not be able to take her elderly mother to the doctor for an appointment, and there was no one else to do it. That bothered me. My friend is the pastor’s wife, and surely there are dozens of people in her church who would be willing and able to meet such a need, if they knew about it. And it occurred to me that I’m “willing and able” locally to meet such needs (such as being called to stay with children in the midlde of the night if there’s a family emergency or any such things–I work from home and don’t have my own family, so I have a very flexible schedule)–but people in my church wouldn’t necessarily feel free to call me, because we simply don’t “do that” in our culture. But to me that’s part of my being single, that I have such availability to others.
But if you mean something else by monasticism, we may not be in disagreement.
Report comment to moderator
Oh Reg, I’m afraid you have no idea of the biblical seriousness of marriage–an unbreakable covenant that’s a picture of Christ and His church. With that understanding, it makes sense that God hates divorce.
And yesterday on another thread someone used the Scripture of Jesus saying (paraphrase here), “Moses said that if you want to divorce your wife, give her a certificate of divorce [which is what you've been saying], but I say that no one can divorce his wife except for fornication, or he is committing adultery against her.” Again, that’s from rough memory and is thus a paraphrase, but surely Jesus answers this idea that as long as you give the woman a certificate, you can divorce her. Jesus says no, you can’t, not without biblical cause, and that cause is unrepentant adultery. So your interpretation is clearly answered–and invalidated–from Scripture, both based on what marriage IS and based on what Jesus Himself said about marriage. I really don’t care what some book says if it’s contrary to Scripture.
Report comment to moderator
31
“Moses said that if you want to divorce your wife, give her a certificate of divorce [which is what you've been saying], but I say that no one can divorce his wife except for fornication, or he is committing adultery against her.”
you mean?
Matt. 5:31 “It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 5:32 but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery.”
Report comment to moderator
#28 Reg Where are wedding vows in scripture?
Here is one place…
Malachi 2:14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
However, I think you are unintentionally pointing out something very important. Marriage vows are mainly part of church tradition. But Jesus’ words indicate there is something more going on, something that involves regeneration, changed lives, two becoming one.
they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Matt 19:6
Paul explains in Ephesians 5 why God created marriage in the first place. It is a picture of God’s desired relationship with his people. God explains this sacred mystery to us through the illustration of man and wife: the intimacy, the unconditional love, the unbreakable bond.
For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Eph 5:30-32
Report comment to moderator
33-
Why would you assume that it is unintentional?
Report comment to moderator
31,32
In other words, if you are not going to live rightly with your wife, then divorce her. Or, if you have not divorced her (but have only put her away) then divorce her.
Report comment to moderator
Reg:
Alternate renderings of texts are commonplace and not particularly meaningful, especially when they say essentially the same thing. It is a mistake to put too much weight on them. Some NT citations follow Hebrew texts of the OT, some the Greek Septuagint.
Trying to build a case that “putting away” and “divorce” have different meanings in this context is an uphill climb. Both translations are used and “putting away” is used interchangeably with divorce. There is no reason to think Jesus is saying here that putting away is incomplete and needs to be followed up with a divorce. Such a response addresses no question posed by His interlocutors, expressed or otherwise. It would only answer a question asked by a modern reader looking for some thread to hang their own opinion on, not a good formula for hermeneutical sobriety.
Barry post #15: Three kinds of lies: lies, d****d lies, and statistics. Or: “He uses statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost, for support rather than illumination.”
Statistics show no difference (not poorer performance) for self-identified Christians; but also show that Christians who actively participate in church services, (probably the best sociological metric for life transforming belief)have far more secure marriages than the general population that otherwise matches up demographically.
Report comment to moderator
The men who see putting away and divorce as the same thing are the very men to which Jesus was speaking. He was telling them to stop abusing women.
Report comment to moderator
Reg, I’m not sure if you’ve ever taken a hermeneutics class, but when Jesus said, “But I say unto you,” he was disagreeing with the practice. In other words, Moses said it’s OK to go ahead and divorce your wife (the certificate being the actual full divorce you’re advocating), but I, Jesus, am nullifying what Moses said. I, Jesus, am saying don’t divorce your wife, unless she has committed adultery, because if you divorce her without this adequate cause, then you are committing adultery, and encouraging her to commit adultery also (since she may remarry). Jesus simply isn’t making a distinction between divorce and putting away, and even if He was, He’s saying the opposite of what you’re saying, because He’s saying the certificate of divorce is NOT valid, except in cases of adultery. He’s not broadening divorce, but strictly narrowing it. And yes, He was saying stop abusing women–stop divorcing them without cause.
The apostle Paul then added an additional acceptable reason for divorce–if your unbelieving spouse walks away from the marriage, you can consider yourself freed as well.
Report comment to moderator
Reg – Putting aside whether those few verses mean divorce or “putting away”, there is so much more in the Bible about marriage that would indicate its sacredness. Xion mentioned some of them in his recent comment above.
When God says that two become one flesh, & that they should “cleave” to one another, this tells us that marriage is a sacred & mysterious bond that should not be broken except for the most dire of circumstances.
Report comment to moderator
#4 Reg “Why would you assume that it is unintentional? “
Because we are making different points. I am talking about marriage. You are talking about divorce.
Report comment to moderator
38
The words you say sound so right because so many Christians argue this point, that the only, or one of the only biblical reasons for divorce is adultery.
The translation of this belief is: the only biblical reason for divorce is for proven adultery, because the adulterer may be an habitual liar and not admit it. What if the wife knows but can’t prove it?
The problem is, after trying to LIVE that “Christian” belief for twenty years, I have experienced the ridiculous reality that we have created with this thinking. I could not PROVE he was unfaithful. And if I couldn’t prove it, then I didn’t really KNOW, and no church staff was going to believe ME. HE was a great liar and manipulator, so what do I do? Stay because I cannot prove it to a third party? Someone said to me recently that a third party cannot know what is going on in a marriage. It is inpenatrable. One woman had known her husband for 25 years and could tell, after 25 years, when he had emotionally left her. she divorced him, I am sure without a pastoral approval. A year later she discovered that he truly was having an affiar the year before when he was emotionally vacant in their home. I thought that was a great illustration of how only the couple knows what is truly going on, or perhaps, they, like I, don’t know all the details, but they KNOW in their hearts that the relationship is dead.
In my situation, I could not prove adultery, so felt bound to stay and keep enduring all of the other bad behaviors that a repeated adulterer loves to do, such as lying, blaming, manipulating, humiliating, abusing, danger seeking, he is bipolar. No one should have to live like that
(talk about breaking the commandment about not murdering)just because she cannot see him commit adultery. where there is smoke, there is fire and where there is porn and hatefulness, there may be adultery.
As for marriage being sacred, there is no dispute about that. But on that point, you can go both ways. To say that because it is sacred, we can’t get out of it, ensures that there are many miserable marriages. Because in this world, there will be both kinds of marriages. It takes discernment to navigate the waters.
To allow people to pursue healthy relationships is a valid point as well. Because marriage is sacred, we are going to seek health by not staying trapped in bad ones.
Report comment to moderator
“The apostle Paul then added an additional acceptable reason for divorce–if your unbelieving spouse walks away from the marriage, you can consider yourself freed as well.”
OR, how about if your spouse, who claims to be a Christian, but doesn’t live like one, manipulates you, cuts you off financially, lies about you, humiliates you, but insists on sleeping with you, in other words, a spouse who is creative, but nonetheless, an unbelieving spouse who walks away from the marriage??
Report comment to moderator
#42
Yes, I would consider that a description of an unbeliever who walks away from the marriage.
Report comment to moderator
life is sacred and we seek to live the best that we can
not everything that calls itself a marriage is a marriage
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!