A Reconstructed View of Weddings

On a recent Internet discussion list, the subject came up regarding whether the church has the Biblical authority to perform weddings. As various people responded (“flaming” is the preferred term), some accused the church of tyranny, others that the state overstepped its bounds for requiring marriage licenses, etc. Howls of outrage (in one quarter) greeted my statement that in the conclusion of wedding ceremonies, I refused to say, “And now by the authority vested in me by the state of....” My reason is that I am not now, nor have I ever been, an agent of the state in my ministerial duties. Therefore, any authority I have is ecclesiastical, not magisterial. But the question is a good one. Is there a Biblical basis for the way we conduct our marriage ceremonies? And if so, what does it mean when a minister says, “And now by the authority vested in me. . .”? These are questions Christian Reconstructionists need to examine.

A major tenet of Christian Reconstruction has been “sphere sovereignty” in relation to how God governs His creation. Each sphere has certain delegated duties, responsibilities and privileges. Tyranny, anarchy and apostasy occur when one sphere intrudes into or rules the others. Normally speaking, these spheres are said to consist of self-government, family government, church government and state government. These spheres are distinct, though mutually-affirming. God’s law order requires submission in all these areas. When considering the issue of marriage, all four spheres are concerned. The issue is, what duties and responsibilities has God given to each?

The Responsibilities of the Various Governments

Obviously, self-government has paramount importance: a husband must love his wife as Christ loved the church, being her lawful head and working to present her blameless to Christ (cf. Eph. 5:19ff). In the same way, the wife is to submit to her husband. Thus Christian marriages function only insofar as the individuals involved understand and have the character to fulfill their roles, Biblically. Rushdoony points out that in ancient Israel, a man had to pay a purchase price for his bride, equaling approximately three years’ worth of his labor. This “bride price” thus demonstrated to the father that a prospective suitor was a responsible, diligent and conscientious worker and would therefore be able to take care of his bride. The bride price then became the daughter’s dowry. Character, not romantic love, is the essential component of a successful Christian marriage (cf. Tit. 2:4).

Family government is also central. The husband leaves his father and mother, cleaves unto his wife, becoming one flesh with her, and beginning a new household. The woman leaves her father’s household, forming a new covenant relationship and ending an old one. In God’s Law, it is the parents (especially the father) who determine whether the marriage is acceptable.

Church government also exercises a place, in that a marriage covenant is a lawful oath, taken before God (cf. Mal. 2:14). God performed the first wedding ceremony in the Garden with Adam and Eve. He administered the oath in Genesis 1:28, blessed Adam and Eve, and then told them their covenant duties: to be fruitful, to multiply, to fill the earth and subdue it, to keep His covenant law regarding the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Today, the minister administers the oath, reminding both couples of their duties and responsibilities. He warns them of the consequences of breaking the oath, gives them the details of that oath, and then blesses the marriage.

Authority

But, “by what authority” does a minister do this? Where does God in Scripture give the church the right and authority to perform marriages? Furthermore, is this an exclusive power given to the church? If so, where does Scripture say this? What is even meant when a pastor says, “By the authority vested in me I pronounce you...”?

Most Reformed Christians know that marriage was (and is) considered a sacrament in the Roman Church. Therefore the church had exclusive power over it since she had the power of the keys to the Kingdom. But with the Reformation, the sacraments were reduced from seven, to two (baptism and the Lord’s Supper). Therefore, if marriage is no longer a sacrament, does the church have any lawful authority here?

I would argue that the authority the church has, is the right to announce that the marriage is lawful and acceptable in the sight of God and man (cf. WCF 25:3- 4). Thus the Church of Jesus Christ is a formal witness to the covenant vows, made under both self and family government. It also blesses the marriage, as God did in the Garden. Marriage is a divine institution, created by God for human happiness and holiness. It is therefore appropriate that Christians seek His formal blessing, through His ministers in the church, as they take their covenant vows before Him. However, is a church wedding required by God’s Law?

It is significant that the Scriptures do not give us any details of a specific marriage ceremony. In Old Testament culture, when marriages occur, the ceremony is unclear. For example, when David married Abigail (I Sam. 25:39- 44) he simply sent a proposal, which she accepted and then moved in with him. (Since the covenant with her father ended with her marriage to Nabal, after his death, she was free to remarry whomever she chose.) From this (and other examples) we learn that marriage is primarily in Scripture between the individuals and the families (see, for example. Judges 14:2 where Samson, sinfully, demands his father “get him a wife.”)

Marriage and Covenants

Now let me see if I can hang myself publicly and be properly tarred and feathered. I tentatively conclude that though a good thing, a person is not required to take his marriage vows before the church to be lawfully married. I would argue (and others may well want to correct me here), that the very act of taking a woman into one’s home and having a physical relationship with her is implicitly an adoption of the marriage vows, duties and responsibilities.

The Old Testament case law regarding fornication is instructive here. Deuteronomy 22:28 lays out a case wherein a man lies with a virgin. He is required to marry her without divorce for the rest of his days. If acceptable to the father (cf. Ex 22:17), the man must now formally assume the obligations of marriage, without respite, because he took the special intimacy of marriage.

The fact that in our modern culture, fornication abounds, and people change “partners” almost as often as they change their socks, witnesses to the apostasy and wickedness of this generation. But physical intimacy with a member of the opposite sex is a de facto acceptance of the responsibilities of marriage, and the sanctions that occur when those vows are violated, regardless of whether the individuals involved realize the implications of their actions.

Now lest anyone think I am advocating “shacking up” as an appropriate means of marriage I should add that, all I am saying is that the physical act is a “de facto” marriage. That simply having sex was not an appropriate marriage is seen in that the man had to pay a fine for taking the woman’s virginity. The formal adoption of vows makes the action “de jure.” In other words, no matter what spurious concept a couple may have of marriage (e.g., as a contract to be severed at will) it is a divine covenant and they will come under both the blessings and sanctions of that covenant (cf. Mt. 19:6).The physical act of “cleaving” is seen by God as an acceptance of the duties and responsibilities of marriage. When men break those covenant stipulations by changing “partners,” adultery, etc., they bring God’s judgment upon themselves.

It is significant that modern people, antinomian to the core, often refuse to have their marriage blessed by the church. In refusing the blessing of the church, they are implicitly refusing to acknowledge their covenant responsibilities before God. They often then write their own vows, a common ending being “as long as we both shall love....” Yet it is also significant that sometimes, even pagans appeal to the church to perform their weddings. This is a realization that even in evil times, when the truth is suppressed in unrighteousness, many still innately understand that God is the author of this covenant.

State

Where does the state come in? We live in a godless, lawless age where the state proclaims itself the savior of men and seeks to suppress all other forms of government. Yet in an ideal situation, wherein each of the spheres of government acts in concert under the authority of God’s law, there is a godly role for the state in marriage. The state has the authority of the sword. When, because of sin, the marriage covenant is broken, the state has sanctions it can apply against wickedness: i.e., executing adulterers, fornicators, sodomites, etc. The state could also lawfully ensure that property settlements were handled properly (i.e., the wicked is disinherited, the offended party receives the children, etc.).

Though an appeal can be made to church courts that could and should adjudicate such disputes today (as per 1 Cor. 6:1-7), the situation in Corinth is temporary. Not always will the state be in opposition to the Kingdom. Therefore there will come a day when the state has judges that are godly men and therefore Christians can lawfully appeal to them for justice when wronged. The family and the church do not have the authority to force a man, for example, to return his wife’s dowry, or to care for his children (assuming of course that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of a capital crime). The state has no authority to determine what marriage is, who should be married, etc., apart from God’s Law. I can see no Biblical basis for the state requiring a marriage license. Marriage is primarily between families, with the church as a witness and the godly state as an avenger.

Can the state lawfully perform a wedding? If I am correct that marriage is a solemn covenant before God, and both parties implicitly assume the duties, responsibilities and covenant obligations of marriage by the act of physical intimacy, then yes, the state can witness those vows . But then again, so could virtually anyone. Regardless of what the state or the parties involved think they are doing, they are under God’s covenant laws regarding marriage; for when they become “one flesh,” they are married. The danger in state-performed weddings, is the implicit assumption that the state has authority over the family. Once the state assumes a power, it can be remarkably reluctant to give it up. Thus state marriage ceremonies are innately dangerous to the authority of the other spheres of government. However, the fact that the state assumes authority it does not have, or that the parties do not understand the implications of what they are doing, does not excuse them from the covenant obligations. The fact that they refuse God’s blessing through His church simply witnesses to their apostasy and the curses they will bring onto themselves. But man cannot escape the consequences of God’s covenant and His Law. He still holds them to His criteria.

But since they assumed the responsibilities of marriage (regardless of who witnessed their vows) a couple are truly married, and therefore if they become believers , their marriage does not have to be “re-administered” by the church (though I have seen some folks request a reaffirmation of their marriage vows after becoming believers).

Thus, all four spheres of authority have a place in lawful marriage. The church must not assume to itself powers it does not have, and the state must be restrained from swallowing up everything to itself. Young people need to be reminded of their covenantal obligations to their families and the families of their duties to God. Finally, marriage is an oath, a solemn vow, that God’s law will be obeyed “to love, honor, cherish and obey, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part....”

Starting Reconstruction

Reconstructing weddings begins first with self- and family governments. Fathers must assume their God-given responsibility to teach their children, bringing them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (cf. Eph. 6:1ff). Children at a young age must be catechized in the true religion, and taught specifically their duties and obligations under God’s Law (cf. Dt. 6:4ff). These kinds of children, instructed, admonished, disciplined and corrected, will, in God’s grace, grow up internalizing God’s Law. They will therefore become responsible, productive adults, able to make wise decisions concerning their future. More importantly, if parents do their job right, their children will automatically seek life mates who share the same views.

Second, in this age, the myth of romantic infatuation must be demolished as a basis for marriage. Young people will often “fall in love.” But they need to have the character to know that this has nothing to do with making a marriage glorifying to God or rewarding to the spouses. Parents need to pray for their children when they are very young, that God would give them grace in terms of a life mate. And then they need to train their children what to look for, and to have the moral courage and strength to reject inappropriate partners, regardless of their attractiveness. One important way is not to allow the family to be fractured by individualistic activities. Keep the family together when they are young, and they won’t separate into atomistic entities when they grow up.

Third, children, when approaching their adult years, must be prepared not only for the emotional responsibilities of marriage, but the ethical and financial as well. They must KNOW that dating is an ungodly, non- Christian and pagan innovation and replace it with courting. Young men need to learn how to save for marriage and not dissipate their youth. Young people need to stay at home, learn how to work diligently, save and demonstrate that they are ready for their future responsibilities.

Fourth, churches need to remember that their role is not magisterial. Churches must help the family, not splinter it. Parents in general (but fathers in particular) need to be constantly admonished, instructed, encouraged to take their covenant responsibilities seriously. They are the prime educators of their children, not the state and not even the church. Family worship is essential, and the church needs to free up families with young children from mindless religious activities and make them focus first, on raising godly children

When the parents do their job, and the children do their job, and the church does its job, then we will be empowered to dismantle the messianic state.