Tag: Culture

Should a Pastor Perform a Wedding for a Cohabiting Couple?

~ Evan Lenow ~ 2 Comments

There is a growing trend in contemporary American society related to living together before getting married. According to the 2010 census data from the US Census Bureau, there were 7.529 million opposite sex unmarried couple households.[1] The National Marriage Project based at the University of Virginia notes:

Between 1960 and 2009, the number of cohabiting couples in the United States increased more than fifteenfold. About a quarter of unmarried women age 25 to 39 are currently living with a partner, and an additional quarter have lived with a partner at some time in the past. More than 60 percent of first marriages are now preceded by living together, compared to virtually none 50 years ago. For many, cohabitation is a prelude to marriage. For others, it is simply better than living alone. For a small but growing number, it is considered an alternative to marriage.[2]

As a seminary professor who teaches a class on marriage and family, I try to prepare my students for that time in their ministry when someone asks them to perform a wedding ceremony. There are a number of questions we need to ask ourselves before agreeing to be a part of the ceremony. In fact, LifeWay Research released the results of a recent survey they performed on just this issue. The summary article can be found at Baptist Press and LifeWay’s Facts and Trends Online. The results are interesting and a little frightening.

The lead stat for the article relates to cohabitation before marriage. The study notes:

The survey of 1,000 randomly selected Protestant pastors found that a majority (58 percent) will perform weddings for couples they know are living together. Nearly a third (31 percent) will not, and 10 percent are not sure.

When it comes to cohabitating couples, pastors who consider themselves mainline are more likely to perform weddings then those who consider themselves evangelical.

In response to the question, “When asked to do so, will you perform a marriage ceremony for a couple whom you know is living together?” 68 percent of mainline pastors say yes compared with 57 percent of evangelicals. Twenty-four percent of mainline pastors and 34 percent of evangelicals say no.

A minister’s level of education also reveals differences in pastors’ willingness to perform marriage ceremonies for couples who are living together.

A full 62 percent of pastors with at least a master’s degree will marry cohabitating couples while only 52 percent of those with a bachelor’s degree or less will perform weddings for couples living together before marriage. Twenty-nine percent of pastors with at least a master’s degree will not perform such ceremonies compared with 36 percent of those with a bachelor’s degree or less.

To me, this statistic about the willingness of pastors to perform weddings for couples they know to be cohabiting is disturbing. If we set aside the biblical material that relates to cohabitation and just look at the sociological data, pastors should be reticent to perform such marriages.

The National Marriage Project notes that cohabitation is more common among those of lower educational levels, lower income levels, the less religious, “those who have been divorced, and those who have experienced parental divorce, fatherlessness, or high levels of marital discord during childhood.”[3] After noting all these demographic details, National Marriage Project states:

The belief that living together before marriage is a useful way “to find out whether you really get along,” and thus avoid a bad marriage and an eventual divorce, is now widespread among young people. But the available data on the effects of cohabitation fail to confirm this belief. In fact, a substantial body of evidence indicates that those who live together before marriage are more likely to break up after marriage.[4]

Even though the authors acknowledge that the evidence is somewhat controversial, Wilcox concludes, “What can be said for certain is that no research from the United States has yet been found that those who cohabit before marriage have stronger marriages than those who do not.”[5]

So why would a pastor perform a marriage for a cohabiting couple when the sociological evidence says that such couple are more likely to get divorced? I think the answer is societal pressure and a desire not to offend. Certainly Scripture is clear in its condemnation of fornication (a KJV-style word for a pre-marital sexual relationship). Fornication and fornicators (as well as adulterers) are described as evil, subject to judgment, and not heirs of the kingdom of God (Matt 15:19; Acts 15:20, 29; 1 Cor 6:9; Heb 13:4).

What should one do when encountering this situation? Here are a few suggestions. First, remember that cohabitation is not the unpardonable sin. After Paul gives a vice list in 1 Cor 6:9–10 that says certain people, including fornicators and adulterers, will not inherit the kingdom of God, he states, “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11). We need to work with these couples to help them confess and repent of this sin. Ideally, this confession and repentance should have a public element to it within the church. This does not necessarily mean that they air their dirty laundry before the church on Sunday morning, but it should at least include their families and those in their circle of influence who are aware of the situation. Depending on the church, it may also include the entire church body.

Second, I believe separation from the cohabiting relationship is in order prior to marriage. This involves all aspects of the relationship. If it means a woman moves back home with her parents, or a man moves in with some friends for a period of a few months, then so be it. If the couple is not willing to do this for the remainder of the time leading up to the marriage, then they are not interested in honoring God with their marriage.

Third, assuming that the couple has cooperated in the first two points, I believe the pastor must still examine his own convictions about marriage to determine whether or not he desires to place his “stamp of approval” on the wedding by performing the ceremony.

I believe our culture has become too focused on the wedding ceremony, and some pastors are fearful that they might alienate an influential family in the church if they do not fulfill the daughter’s wish for a “dream wedding.” Marriage is much more than a ceremony. It is a lifetime covenant established by God (Gen 2:22–24). It is time we focus on the marriage and not the ceremony, but the decision to perform the wedding is part of that process.

[1] U.S. Census Bureau, “America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2010,” Table UC3. http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2010.html. These couples self-identified as unmarried partners.

[2] W. Bradford Wilcox, ed., “When Marriage Disappears: The New Middle America,” The State of Our Unions: Marriage in America 2010, 76.  http://www.virginia.edu/marriageproject/pdfs/Union_11_12_10.pdf.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., 76–77.

[5] Ibid., 77.

Speaking “Christianese”

~ Evan Lenow

There is an interesting post at CNN’s Belief Blog about a phenomenon in American Christianity. The author, John Blake, addresses the ability of Americans to speak a second language of Christian lingo. Blake writes:

Many Americans are bilingual. They speak a secular language of sports talk, celebrity gossip and current events. But mention religion and some become armchair preachers who pepper their conversations with popular Christian words and trendy theological phrases.

He notes several interesting characteristics of this “Christianese,” including its use by politicians (especially George W. Bush) to signal subtly to evangelicals that they are one of them.

Part of the article is also devoted to exposing inaccuracies in commonly used terms and phrases.  Blake (and Marcus Borg in his book Speaking Christian) argue that Christians regularly misuse terms such as salvation, born again, and rapture. Citing Borg’s book, Blake notes:

“Speaking Christian is an umbrella term for not only knowing the words, but understanding them,” Borg says. “It’s knowing the basic vocabulary, knowing the basic stories.” When Christians forget what their words mean, they forget what their faith means, Borg says.

I don’t agree with all of the theological assumptions that Blake (and Borg) make in this article, but it is certainly an interesting take on religious life in America. I think they are correct to note that we often talk in code and assume that everyone else knows what we are saying. For that reason, it is essential that we define our terms and not take for granted that everyone knows what we mean. We live in a society today with little or no “Christian memory.” Churches in the southern US, especially, have typically approached the world with the assumption that everyone has a church background. That is no longer true in our culture. We need to speak clearly, define our terms, and proclaim the message of Christ with conviction and compassion.

Poll Measures God’s Approval Rating

~ Evan Lenow

I am a self-confessed talk radio junkie. I listen to talk radio 95% of the time I am in the car. My oldest daughter has even asked my wife why daddy always listens to people talking on the radio instead of music. I prefer local talk radio shows over the nationally-syndicated types, and I am an equal-opportunity listener to both news/politics and sports talk radio. Typically on my drive in to work each day, I listen to a local DFW talk radio show, and I get my fill of news, politics, and job approval ratings. By the time I read something online or in the paper, I’ve already heard about it on the radio. However, I came across something new yesterday that I had never seen—God’s job approval rating.

Yes, the North Carolina-based Public Policy Polling conducted a poll[1] to measure, among other things, God’s approval rating. Some of the questions included, “If God exists, do you approve or disapprove of its performance? If God exists, do you approve or disapprove of its handling of natural disasters? If God exists, do you approve or disapprove of its handling of animals? If God exists, do you approve or disapprove of its handling of creating the universe?”

What makes this poll even more interesting is that it was conducted as part of a national congressional poll. Therefore, we are able to see how God stacks up against leaders in the national government. God’s overall job approval was 52% approve, 9% disapprove (40% not sure). Compared to John Boehner (33% approve, 37% disapprove), Congressional Democrats (33% approve, 54% disapprove), and Congressional Republicans (33% approve, 55% disapprove), God fared pretty well in the poll. God’s highest rating came with a 71% approval of his handling of creating the universe. He even got a 50% approval rating (13% disapprove and 37% unsure) on natural disasters. In what is perhaps the most ridiculous statement of the entire poll, the authors of the polling results state, “Though not the most popular figure PPP has polled, if God exists, voters are prepared to give it good marks.”

It makes you wonder what possessed Public Policy Polling to include questions about God in its congressional poll. It is certainly interesting that God performed much better than our government officials (and Rupert Murdoch, who was also included in the poll), but what does a poll like this tell us?

First, we have to understand that God is not up for re-election. As Creator of the universe, God exercises sovereign rule over all aspects of creation (land, sea, animals, mankind, and the affairs of man). In Isaiah 40:21–26, the prophet writes:

Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. He it is who reduces rulers to nothing, who makes the judges of the earth meaningless. Scarcely have they been planted, scarcely have they been sown, scarcely has their stock taken root in the earth, but He merely blows on them, and they wither, and the storm carries them away like stubble. “To whom then will you liken Me that I would be his equal?” says the Holy One. Lift up your eyes on high and see who has created these stars, the One who leads forth their host by number, He calls them all by name; because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power, not one of them is missing.

God is firmly in place as ruler of the universe. Though we may think he is absent at times, he is not. Though we may think he is silent at times, he still speaks. One of my favorite book titles (and favorite books) is Francis Scaheffer’s He Is There and He Is Not Silent. This is so true about God no matter what some polling firm states. Our failure to recognize God at work is not his fault—it is ours.

Second, we have to recognize that it is not our place to judge God. Who are we to approve or disapprove of God’s job performance? Job learned this lesson the hard way when God confronted him. In Job 38:1–11, we read:

Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Now gird up your loins like a man, and I will ask you, and you instruct Me! Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding, who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it? On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who enclosed the sea with doors when, bursting forth, it went out from the womb; when I made a cloud its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band, and I placed boundaries on it and set a bolt and doors, and I said, ‘Thus far you shall come, but no farther; and here shall your proud waves stop’?”

After God continued to question Job, we see Job’s humble response to God in Job 42:2–6,

I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted. ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’ Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. ‘Hear, now, and I will speak; I will ask You, and You instruct me.’ I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; but now my eye sees You; therefore I retract, and I repent in dust and ashes.

Just like Job, we have no standing to judge God or give our approval (or disapproval) to his job performance. God’s ways are higher than our ways, and his thoughts are higher than our thoughts (Isa 55:9). When we declare that we know how God could have done something better, or we give our disapproval of his performance, we naïvely declare that we know more than God. What an act of hubris!

Consider these things before answering the phone for a political poll (which for some reason call our house on a regular basis). We do not judge God because he is perfect and we are far from it. So what are we to think about this poll? I believe Dino Grandoni from the Atlantic Wire said it best when he wrote, “Believers or not, it seems ridiculous for the public to categorically grade God like this, until you realize that it’s pollsters who asked the questions in the first place.”[2]

[1] Public Policy Polling, “Americans’ perception of Congress improves, but still poor.” July 21, 2011. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_721.pdf.

[2] Dino Grandoni, “Only 52% of Americans Approve of God’s Job Performance,” The Atlantic Wire, July 21, 2011. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/only-half-americans-approve-gods-job-performance/40268/.

Polygamous Marriage: The Next Trend?

~ Evan Lenow ~ 2 Comments

On Wednesday, Kody Brown and his four wives—the stars of TLC’s reality show “Sister Wives”—filed suit in federal court in Utah against the state seeking the decriminalization of bigamy (and by default, polygamy). The case is built upon the 2003 US Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas that decriminalized sodomy on the grounds that the state cannot interfere with the private lives of consenting adults (a.k.a., right to privacy). This current lawsuit hopes to overturn an 1878 Supreme Court decision that declared polygamy unsuitable for American society.

The lawsuit claims:

By criminalizing religious-based plural families and intimate relationships under the criminal bigamy law, Utah officials prosecute private conduct between consenting adults.[1]

In Utah, polygamy is a third-degree felony that can carry a penalty of up to 15 years in prison if convicted.

The Browns have attained fame recently as the stars of “Sister Wives,” a reality television show that follows their lives as a polygamous family. The show airs on the cable/satellite network TLC. Their marriages are considered spiritual marriages because the state will not issue marriage licenses for multiple wives. The Browns claim to be Mormons and participate in polygamy because they believe that their faith rewards those in multiple marriages with a higher place in heaven. Even though the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (i.e., Mormons) disavowed polygamy in 1890, it is apparently still an issue in some sects of Mormonism, especially among fundamentalist groups.

Joanna Brooks, a Mormon scholar and author, notes that polygamy is still an open question to many Mormons. She states:

But the question of polygamy also remains wide open for millions of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints worldwide. The mainstream LDS Church publicly disavowed the practice of polygamy in this life in 1890, but it has never officially disavowed the doctrine that plural marriage is required to enter the highest levels of heaven. Mainstream LDS men who are widowed and remarry continue to be “sealed” or married for the eternities to multiple wives, while mainstream LDS women may not be married or “sealed” for the eternities to more than one man. To this day, mainstream LDS communities are quietly (and sometimes not so quietly) divided on whether or not polygamy will be a fact of life in heaven.[2]

While the question of polygamy among Mormons is an interesting cultural question, there is a larger issue at play with this lawsuit. The real issue is whether or not the government will continue to redefine marriage. Even though the Browns’ attorney, Jonathan Turley, assured CNN’s John King (video available here) that the lawsuit was simply about right to privacy and not recognition of polygamous marriages, the clearly logical conclusion is that any case decriminalizing polygamy will also open the door to legalizing polygamous marriages. In fact, the lawsuit over polygamy is based upon the exact rationale that proponents of homosexual marriage are using in various states to seek recognition of their marriages.

With the recent action by the New York legislature and this lawsuit in Utah, the understanding of marriage as a union between one man and one woman is under full-scale attack from multiple fronts. If the Browns win their lawsuit, it will probably only be a matter of weeks before lawsuits seeking state recognition of polygamy hit the courts. They will use the same arguments that have won the day (at least in some states) for homosexual marriage. Then the next two logical steps—using the same argumentation—will be polyamorous marriages (multiple husbands AND wives) and incestuous marriages. The claim will merely be a right to privacy and marriage as a civil right. We have started down a slippery slope, and I fear the slide may be uncontrollable soon.

[1] “‘Sister Wives’ stars sue over Utah anti-polygamy law.” CNN. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/13/sister-wives-stars-sue-over-utah-anti-polygamy-law/.

[2] Joanna Brooks, “Sister Wives Stars File Suit to Legalize Polygamy,” Religion Dispatches. http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/4852/sister_wives_stars_file_suit_to_legalize_polygamy/.

Robert George on Marriage

~ Evan Lenow

The New York legislature recently passed a law redefining the meaning of marriage in order to allow for “same-sex marriages” in the state. Robert George was interviewed by the National Review about the recent legislation. Here are a few excerpts.

The vote in New York to redefine marriage advances the cause of loosening norms of sexual ethics, and promoting as innocent — and even “liberating” — forms of sexual conduct that were traditionally regarded in the West and many other places as beneath the dignity of human beings as free and rational creatures.

Once one buys into the ideology of sexual liberalism, the reality that has traditionally been denominated as “marriage” loses all intelligibility. That is true whether one regards oneself politically as a liberal or a conservative. For people who have absorbed the central premises of sexual liberation (whether formally and explicitly, as liberals tend to do, or merely implicitly as those conservatives who have gone in for it tend to do), marriage simply cannot function as the central principle or standard of rectitude in sexual conduct, as it has in Western philosophy, theology, and law for centuries.

The institution of marriage has already been deeply wounded by divorce at nearly plague levels, widespread non-marital sexual cohabitation, and other damaging factors. To redefine it out of existence in law is to make it much more difficult to restore a sound understanding of marriage on which a healthy marriage culture can be rebuilt for the good of all. It is to sacrifice the needs of the poor, who are hurt the most when a sound public understanding of marriage and sexual morality collapses. It is to give up on the truth that children need both a father and mother, and benefit from the security of their love for each other.

Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. He has written and lectured extensively on various ethical issues, including marriage. He generally approaches issues from a Catholic natural law perspective. I am always intrigued to read what he has to say on cultural issues because he is a good thinker and very clear. I don’t always agree with him, but I agree way more often than I disagree.

You can read the full interview here.