Sam,
I do not have a problem with the marrying of unbelievers. I would suggest the following additions to your thoughts.

1. Their previous sin of "Living in Sin" is a rather legalistic perspective. Before they get married, they are living in the sin of adultery/fornication. After they are married, however, they are still living in the sins sins of envy, selfishness, and other which are (thankfully?) more subtle. Your assistance in helping them leave a life of sin is good. Your role in this called "being the friend of sinners."
2. I will not marry a couple when either one has divorced their previous spouse without cause - infidelity or abuse.

Real quick...i'm not sure what you mean by "living in sin" being a legalistic perspective.  i avoid that phrase for the very reason that it makes it sound as if sexual immorality is a special sin that can be made up for by marrying (which it cannot).  My reason for noting it in particular is that i don't have a tremendous desire to marry a couple that i don't think is going to take their vows seriously, and the willingness to engage in sexual activity before marriage is simply the willingness to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage.  If they have that willingness now, will they not have that willingness in the future, and thus be prone to wander (as the old hymn says:)?  And that wandering is among the most destructive of failings (at least as far as its immediately observable effects).

I do agree with you however, that they will likely continue to live in sins of selfishness, etc.  But is that not what fornication is...selfishness?  I reject what God tells me to do my own thing.  In sex, like everything else, it takes a considerable bending of the will to be selfless.

I hope to come back to this after my golf extravaganza...eat your heart out Adam...because i want to address your second point, and find out your basis for that rule.

Thanks for your comments...you're making me think!  I had almost forgotten how much fun it is.

Sam,

   I have no problem with you marrying non-believers (and I even think they can be a good picture of Christ and the Church), but I'm not sure I understand why you refuse to hold them to the same standard of behavior that you would a believing couple. Simply because they do not accept the rule of God in their lives does not mean that God doesn't rule over their lives, and certainly his standard for them as individuals is the same as it is for you, be holy as he is holy, so I don't see why his standard for their marriage would be different than his standard for yours, or why it would be blackmail to insist that, if you are to marry them, their present relationship be moral and chaste. It seems meaningless to explain the truth to them, as you propose to do, but then not expect them to do anything about it. In fact, does it not actually weaken the force of the truth you present, because why should they have any respect for something that does not apply to them?

   Surely there must be some point at which you would draw the line, so I am curious to know what that is. Also, I don't quite understand what distinction you are making between your view of marriage and the traditional view. As far as I am aware, marriage understood as vow making is very traditional (otherwise, why are all these vows being made in weddings), so are you arguing for a new concept of marriage, or a new concept of vows, or what?

I’m currently developing my view of whom I wouldn’t marry.  My lowest standard would be:  I won’t marry people who have treated their previous marriage covenant(s) shabbily.  Meaning, if a guy divorces his wife after cheating on her and now wants to marry some new young thang, I’ll have to decline to be a part of it.  What I feel is the safest standard is: Any breaking of a previous marriage covenant prevents me from re-marrying them. 

As I was talking with my wife last night, I suggested the following.  The marriage vow is not dependent upon both people keeping it.  I do not escape my vow if my wife breaks hers.  The vow is only ended at death.  This means that a woman whose husband runs off on her and gets re-married, may not marry again.  She must live out her life bereft of the intimate marriage relationship because of her husband’s sinful actions.  This is not fair, of course…but then again, God has never promised us fairness.  (Wow, there are a lot of issues being brought up…maybe I’ll do my PhD on this topic…)  What I need to determine is whether or not God expects this of an individual.  If so, then I’m willing to go with it.

Regarding your belief that an unsaved couple can be a good picture of Christ and the Church…do you really believe that an unsaved man can be said to be a good image of Christ when he is not caring for the spiritual needs of his wife?  I agree that an unsaved man can love his wife, and that an unsaved woman can respect her husband…but the spiritual issue seems to dominate Paul’s thoughts in Ephesians…

Ok, finally, to the issue of chastity before marriage.  Where does the Bible say that a man and woman have to have a chaste relationship in order to be married?  I know that unchastity in the OT was a capital offense, but I think it’s a tough case to make.  Now, certainly, promiscuity is destructive, and may indicate that this fellow and/or girl are not going to take their vows seriously, but are there not other such sins.  In fact, wouldn’t issues of honesty, work ethics, road-rage also indicate that things may not work out.  Do we expect people to be perfect to get married?  I always reserve the right to decline a marriage where I believe one or both of the individuals are not going to seek to uphold their vows.  And I may well counsel a couple to wait or not to marry based on character flaws I see, but I might still marry them if they know what they’re getting into.

I guess it strikes me that works without faith are dead.  Hebrews says that apart from faith we cannot please God.  If a person is unwilling to acknowledge the Lordship of Christ in their lives, and thus come into a saving relationship with God, then what good is it to demand their actions to conform to God’s values in order to marry them?  When I was talking about blackmail, I was primarily intending to say that I don’t want to tell them that they have to convert in order for me to marry them.  If they reject Christ, then my explanation of virtues will seem like foolishness to them, and off they go to the Unitarian pastor.  And if they agree to stop having relations until marriage, and yet they are unconvinced of God’s rule, what good is it?  My grandma would say, “He who is convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.”

I want to acknowledge that there may be benefit to them by stopping whatever sexual sin in which they are involved (Proverbs would testify to this), but it sure seems like a little band-aid being put on a gaping wound.

Finally, (I mean it this time), why does the clergy get to determine who gets married and who doesn’t.  Nowhere does God command us to oversee marriages (that I know of), yet we’re practically always present.  Marriage is not the Church saying such and such a couple are married, it is the taking of vows between a man and woman (yes, I’ll vote for the amendment), presumably in front of witnesses…I feel like I have a lot of unanswered questions about marriage…maybe I’ll take a marrying hiatus until I have it figured out.  Fortunately, I don’t have another scheduled until next summer.

Adam, I’m sorry for the rambling response…you brought up a lot of questions, and then I brought up more.  Thanks for your criticism; I miss having you here in person to get things worked out (without public humiliation!).

Sam,

The marriage vow is dependent on both members keeping it.
You say:

I do not escape my vow if my wife breaks hers.

In Matthew 19:9 Jesus says,

whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery
(ESV)

The sexual immorality is her immorality, and this road goes both ways. So in your example of the husband cheating, his wife is no longer bound by her vow. The marriage covenant (like any covenant) is dependant on both people keeping it.

This isn't to say that honoring one's vows in the face of betrayal is worthless. There is great value and honor given to the Lord when the betrayed spouse forgives and the two are reconciled.

Brian,

Well, two things. 

1. The rest of the verse says, “and whoever marries her who is put away commits adultery.”  I think we need to deal with this as well.  Is this referring to any woman who is put away, or the woman who is put away because of her immorality?  If we can clearly answer this, then we are most of the way home.
2. I think you might be confusing the issue by equating the breaking of the vow with the sin of adultery.  Certainly, adultery breaks the vow, but does not end it, or free the adulterer from the responsibility to fulfill it.  The typical vow is to “love, honor, cherish in sickness and in health until death.”  I don’t see how you can stop loving, honoring and cherishing and be said to have kept your vow.  But I have not committed adultery if I stop loving my wife…I’ve committed a different sin altogether.  If a man puts away his wife because of her unfaithfulness and marries another woman, he may not be committing adultery according to Jesus’ statement here in Matthew, but I don’t see how he can be said to be keeping the vow he made.

It seems to me that the marriage covenant is (or should be) unconditional.  There are different covenants, some are conditional, and some are not.  I guess its possible to have your vows stated in a conditional way, “I vow to love and cherish until you’re unfaithful, or I find my real soulmate,” but it seems contrary to the nature of marriage, and especially the love relationship of which it is an image, that of Christ and the Church.  See also our good friend Hosea.

This is off the top of my head…the lower stuff is being used for other things right now…I hope it is coherent.

Sam.

This is a very worthy discussion. I am one of Sam's friends in Chicago (didn't know he had any out here, eh?) and he invited me to partake of the blogging frenzy as I have time. I hope you will welcome my contributing comments at least.

It may be interesting to consider what differences there may be between a contract and a covenant. It seems to me that if marriage is contractual, then the breaking of that agreement by one spouse releases the other from his/her obligations. This type of relationship is very appropriate in a work or ministry environment, or even perhaps for a partnership. The two remain two distinct and unique parties to the contract--and the contract governs the nature of their relationship. When the contract expires--by death or disagreement--the two parties remain entirely themselves, except that they are no longer in a relationship to one another. (sorry to bring up another topic for your PhD, Sam, but it seems to me that "pre-nuptial agreements" presuppose a view of marriage as a contractual agreement.)

In a covenant relationship, on the other hand, there are some profound differences. A covenant requires a witness (or witnesses). At minimum, in a Christian marriage this is God. However, in non-Biblical (I hesitate to use that word very often, but I do think it fits here--I'm not trying to use a power-play) marriage, the witnesses might include family, magistrates, judges, some other god, etc. But among the witnesses there is usually someone representing a higher authority--a church or temple, the state, the nation, the house of lords.

God makes a covenant with Abraham. He swears by Himself (what higher authority would there be?). It is an everlasting covenant. God loves His people. They rebel against Him, commit adultery, slaughter His messengers who are sent to bring the bride back to her Husband. God responds in many ways throughout this history, but He remains faithful to His covenant despite the unfaithfulness of His Bride. An everlasting covenant is obviously intended to be just that--everlasting. Even when one of the two in the relationship breaks all that has been agreed to.

Is marriage then--whether Christian or not--the "cutting" of an everlasting covenant? Is it intended to last forever, or is it just a partnership between two people for a specific time or task? What does it mean that the two become one flesh? That is unique to the marriage relationship. We don't say that about brothers, for example, even if they are the closest of kin. What does this mystery add to our discussion?

Brian,

Thanks for the follow up comment. I'm sorry I wasn't checking this for a little while. I need some clarification. What you wrote seems to suggest that a contract and a covenant are really two words for the same thing. I agree with your defense of contracts, but I do think there is a categorical difference between "acceptable" ways to fulfill a contract and a covenant. That's what I was trying to focus my attention on.

A contract as I understand it typically involves stipulations (written or implied) which limit liability so that one or both parties can acceptably dissolve or fulfill the contract under agreed upon circumstances without any additional guilt or ongoing obligation.

When Jonathan makes a covenant with David, is that really a 'contract' as described above? What makes it different? Perhaps clarifying your position on that would help me understand where you're coming from on this topic.

Thanks for the welcome!
Jason

Jason,

I agree that a contract usually has an acceptable way to end or fulfill it while a covenant is expected to be forever. Nevertheless, this presents a problem with defining marriage as a covenant.

In 1 Corinthians 7:12, Paul advises a believer not to divorce his or her unbelieving spouse if they will consent to hang around. On the other hand, if the unbelieving spouse leaves, the believer is no longer bound by his or her marriage vows. This means that one person’s marriage vows are only binding while the spouse honors them.

12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved.