Tag: Ethics

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.

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.

When Teachers Cheat

~ Evan Lenow ~ 1 Comment

The Christian Science Monitor published a story today about a scandal in the Atlanta public school system involving teachers who changed test responses for students. According to the article, the governor’s office released an 800-page report describing how 178 teachers and principals altered standardized tests in order to boost test scores. Why would the teachers cheat? They would receive financial bonuses for improved test scores.

The article reports some dreadful behavior on the part of teachers and administrators. The article states:

Among many shocking revelations, the report details “changing parties” where teachers used razor blades to cut security plastic around tests and used lighters to fuse the plastic seams back together after changing scores. It also documented intimidation of teachers by administrators, including one case where a teacher was told to get under a table at a meeting after raising questions.

In the current culture of public education, standardized test scores rule the day. The Atlanta system has the test authorized by the state of Georgia. In my state of Texas, the TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) looms over every student each spring. I know teachers who fight the temptation to “teach toward the test,” but everything rides on the results. It’s hard not to gear lesson plans toward what will be asked on the test rather than what the student should learn in fifth grade math. Why waste your time teaching life skills that are applicable from the English classroom when you know they will not appear on the test.

For the teachers and principals in Atlanta, they may learn a harder lesson. Some of their crimes—altering government documents and lying to investigators—may land them in prison for up to 10 years. The school district will likely face serious fallout as well because their inflated scores had brought significant donations from wealthy benefactors and foundations. Now they may have to return some of the money or at least face the fact that such donations are likely never to happen again.

There are two questions we need to ask about this scandal.  First, what does this say about our current educational system? I am a professor. I develop the content of my classes. I decide what my students are required to read. I decide what I will discuss in class. And I decide what will appear on my exams. However, most public school teachers have no such luxury. Instead, they are told to make sure their students perform well on a standardized test developed by administrators in the state capital. These tests become the law of the land. Property values rise and fall based on the recognition of the local schools. Careers are made and lost based on the scores of 6- to 18-year-olds.

I think we all desire a good education for our children. The public school systems scattered across our country are the mechanism by which many families provide that education. However, it appears that some of these school systems are broken. They are entangled in politics and bureaucracy that care less about education and more about government grants. Certainly not all school systems are like this, but many major cities such as Atlanta, Dallas, and Memphis often find themselves embroiled in controversy and political wrangling.

Second, what are we teaching our children when our teachers cheat? The virtue of integrity seems lost on children today. They look around them and see that you do what it takes to win. Adults lie, cheat, and steal to make it to the top. We hold out hope that somewhere along the way they learn to be virtuous. Many people hope that such lessons come in school. Now we see that 178 “honorable teachers” in Atlanta were not that honorable after all. And Atlanta is not the only city where this is a problem. The teachers who claimed to be teaching the “truth” were living a lie. Success through deception is not success. Our communities suffer when such scandals hit the airwaves. But more importantly, our children suffer because they never learn the value of honesty, hard work, and education.

Reading about this and other scandals reminds me that the world simply acts like the world. We should not be surprised when sinners sin. The cheating scandal in Atlanta is not the problem. Living according to the flesh is the problem. Money, power, and influence can be dangerous temptations. We need to guard our steps .In Proverbs 10:9, we read, “He who walks in integrity walks securely, but he who perverts his ways will be found out.” These teachers and administrators have found this proverb to be true the hard way. However, we need not sit on the sidelines and point fingers at them lest we find ourselves “perverting our ways” rather than “walking in integrity.”

As believers in Christ, we need to watch our own lives and guard against these temptations through the power of the Holy Spirit. In addition, we need to walk in integrity in all our ways. Have we cheated someone in our business? Have we changed reports to make us look better? I pray that we not be found guilty of the same.

War, Peace, and Christianity Book Review

~ Evan Lenow

War, Peace, and Christianity: Questions and Answers from a Just-War Perspective. By J. Daryl Charles and Timothy J. Demy. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010. 413 pages. Softcover, $25.99.

With the United States involved in two declared wars against other nations and participating in armed “peacekeeping” missions around the Middle East, the question of the ethics of war and peace is a major discussion point in the American public. The interesting thing about war is that it often brings back into the public conversation topics that have been discussed for millennia. This is true of the ethics of war and peace, and specifically the just-war theory. At each major crossroads, the discussion is renewed, and people often approach it as a new doctrine when it has actually been around for more than two thousand years. J. Daryl Charles and Timothy J. Demy take advantage of this renewed interest in just-war theory in their book, War, Peace, and Christianity: Questions and Answers from a Just-War Perspective. Both authors are steeped in the just-war tradition, but they come from different backgrounds. Charles, who serves as director and senior fellow of the Bryan Institute for Critical Thought and Practice, comes from a criminal-justice background and has written several works on this subject. Demy is a retired United States Navy commander and currently serves as associate professor of military ethics at the U.S. Naval War College.

This book follows a traditional question and answer format with over 100 questions addressed in its pages. Those questions are divided into six categories to provide structure for the book: Just-War Tradition and the Philosopher, Just-War Tradition and the Historian, Just-War Tradition and the Statesman, Just-War Tradition and the Theologian, Just-War Tradition and the Combatant, and Just-War Tradition and the Individual. For the most part, the book addresses the classical development of just-war theory through the obvious historical sources of Cicero, Augustine, and Aquinas as well as the more recent influential work of Paul Ramsey and James Turner Johnson. For the just-war theorist already well-versed in the tradition, this volume does not add anything significant to the conversation. However, if one is new to the just-war discussion, this book provides a very approachable and thorough discussion of the topic.

Surveying the traditional principles of just-war theory, Charles and Demy provide useful descriptions of the principles of just war in the classic categories of jus ad bellum (literally, justice to war) and jus in bello (literally, justice in war). The jus ad bellum principles include just cause, right intention, proper authority, proportionality, last resort, reasonable chance of success, peace as the ultimate aim, and formal declaration of war. The jus in bello principles include discrimination (or noncombatant immunity) and proportionate means (159–73). The interesting addition that Charles and Demy make to this traditional development is the addition of a third category: jus post bellum (literally, justice after war). While the development of this category does not produce the sophistication of the previous two, it certainly is a noble consideration in the just-war discussion. The authors note, “Scant attention is generally paid to yet a third—and critically important—dimension of justice, namely, justice after war—jus post bellum. If, in fact, part of the moral efficacy of just-war thinking is right intention and a concern for the proper ends, then just post bellum considerations are requisite” (206).

The other unique contribution of this book comes in the final section—Just-War Tradition and the Individual. In this section, Charles and Demy bring personal application questions into the discussion. They ask questions about whether Christian love and charity prevent a believer from serving in war. They discuss the role of an individual accepting the government’s decision to go to war. They also consider the positions on war and peace taken by prominent twentieth-century theologians C. S. Lewis and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

The final questions address common misunderstandings of the just-war tradition and deserve a brief overview. The most common misunderstanding that has been propagated recently is the idea that just-war theory works from a “baseline presumption against war or coercive force rather than against evil or injustice” (389). The authors argue that such a misunderstanding—the presumption against war—leads to a completely pacifist position. Instead, they argue that the presumption is against injustice which then requires the use of force on occasion in order to prevent injustice.

As noted above, this book does not bring much new material to the discussion of just-war theory, but it certainly provides an accessible approach to centuries of debate on the topic. For someone new to this conversation, it is a worthwhile read. Even for the student of just-war theory who has read the primary source material, this volume can serve as a valuable resource to refresh one’s mind on the issues without having to wade through pages of ancient literature. Overall, this is a worthy addition to the library of anyone interested in the topic.