Posted on 10/09/2003 7:56:46 AM PDT by Sweet_Sunflower29
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:37:21 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Exactly. And the canon laws of the Church tend to be both more strict, and vastly more stable, than the shifting laws of the State.
Kind of like a good marriage, huh? How 'bout that...
Actually, it's liberals that are destructive to the institution of marriage. They're the ones who created these insane divorce laws, and they're the same ones who are behind this current push.
Marriage was a legal matter well before it started going downhill, so that's not what caused it. The enemy is easy enough to recognize.
Not strictly speaking.
Granted, there was a closer affiliation between Church and State in Old Testamental Israel, but even then there was a division of duties -- the Levitical Priests and the Civil Judges performed complementary, but distinct offices. As an example, both "Tithing" and the "Right to Life" were established within ancient Israel by the Mosaic Law of God, but the Civil Judges were only responsible for the enforcement of Civil Penalties against Murder -- while Murder was punished by the Civil Judges, there was no Civil Penalty enforced by the Courts of the Judges against "non-payment of Dues" for those who failed to pay their Tithes to the Levitical Priests. Rather, God Himself undertook the punishment and correction of Israel for such Failures of Religious Obligation.
In short, while there was a closer affiliation between Church and State in Old Testamental Israel, it is incorrect (strictly speaking) to term Levitical Israel as being "theocratic" -- the Civil Courts and the Levitical Priesthood were allied Institutions, but they were nonetheless distinct Institutions -- not exact equivalents.
The extension of the Gospel to the Gentile Nations has, inter-Testamentally, brought the distinctions between the offices of Magistrate and Presbyter into greater significance, but the Division of Responsibilities has always existed -- even in the Old Testament.
Abraham and Sarah never applied for a "Justice of the Peace" Marriage License.
Best, OP
Marriage is properly a legal matter, just as Business Partnerships are properly a legal matter -- established by Private Contract, but contractually subject to Legal adjudication.
The trouble started when Caesar usurped that which is not his -- the definition of Marriage itself.
From that, it has all gone downhill. The Canon Laws of the Church are strict and stable in all matters of Marriage; and with the institution of Private Contracts, the Church could once again enforce Canon Law by its inclusion within Private Contracts.
It took the State Monopoly over the definition of "marriage" to create the easy-come, easy-go 50% Divorce regime we have today... and as long as there is a State Monopoly over the definition of "marriage", you can expect more of the same and much worse.
Caesar didn't "usurp" that definition until the liberals got ahold of him. Before that, all he did was protect the pre-existing definition of marriage.
By the way, I saw your other post about ancient Israel. Remind me how adultery was dealt with in those times?
No, at the very point that Caesar claims for himself the definition of marriage, he has usurped that which is not his.
Biblically, Caesar's only scripturally-legitimate office in regard to Marriage is to punish breach of Contract, such as Adultery -- the definition of the Marriage Contract itself is (on every single page of the Bible) a matter of Private and Religious authority, NEVER THE STATE.
Rendering unto Caesar that which is not his (the definition and establishment of Marriage) is a Sin.
By the way, I saw your other post about ancient Israel. Remind me how adultery was dealt with in those times?
Adultery -- the BREACH of Contract -- was punished by the State.
The Contract itself was established by Private and Religious vows, not the License of the State. The State's responsibility was only and exclusively to punish the BREACH of Contract, according to the terms that the Contractors themselves established.
See Deuteronomy chapter 27, verses 14 through 26 -- the Ratification of the Law was a matter of voluntary mutual covenant, not State Mandate. If you care to admit that voluntary mutual covenant (not State Mandate) is the Biblical Standard for the ratification of the Law of God (as recorded in Deuteronomy chapter 27)... then I rest my case, having won the entire argument.
If Privatized Marriage was good enough for the Patriarchs of the Faith, it's good enough for us.
If voluntary mutual covenant (not State Mandate) is the Biblical Standard for Ancient Israel, then the same is true today.
Hmm. 100% congruent principles of Law. Interesting, that.
Best, OP
Was this a civil or criminal punishment? If the latter, then it would be difficult to term it a mere contractual matter. Besides, try "going in unto" someone you weren't "contracted" to at all, and see what would have happened then.
I'm using the term "Civil" to refer to all aspects of State adjudication, as opposed to Religious adjudication.
For example, the matter of "Tithing" which I mentioned above -- both the "Right to Life" and the "Duty of Tithing" was established in Israel, under the Mosaic Law of God; but Civil Penalties were enforced by the Courts of the Judges against Murder, not against Failure to Tithe. One was a Civil Crime (punished by the State), the other was a Religious Crime (not subject to Civil Penalty). Even in Israel, there was a Division of Responsibilities between the Civil Judges and the Levitical Priests ("separation between Church and State" is not a novel concept, originating with Thomas Jefferson. It is found even in Levitical Israel... indeed, first and foremost in Levitical Israel, unlike the Pagan Nations of the time).
Besides, try "going in unto" someone you weren't "contracted" to at all, and see what would have happened then.
As per Deuteronomy 26, the entire population of Israel entered into a voluntary mutual covenant together regarding certain Laws and Public Regulations.
If I have covenanted together with "gridlock" that I have, for example, a legal obligation to provide for his household's daughter if I should seduce her -- then I have a legal obligation to provide for his household's daughter if I should seduce her. This is good, mutually-contractual, voluntary Biblical Law -- the sort we find in Deuteronomy 26.
Absolutely congruent principles of Law.
Best, OP
Well, I have my own "relationship prophylactic" which I have applied to my most recent dating relationships -- since I have joined the OPC, I have only (seriously) dated fellow Orthodox Presbyterians, such as my Ruling Elder's daughter, my Teaching Elder's Daughter, etc. (the occasional, casual dinner-date excepted).
I'm theoretically willing to date any Calvinist Christian, even Reformed Baptists with whom I differ on theology (since all Calvinists take the Law of God seriously); but except for fellow Calvinist Christians, I'm not likely to "call her back" past the first date. It's not worth it.
Adherents of Calvinist Christianity offer me a "theological guarantee" that they take their Religion more seriously than the Laws of the State -- and that's what I need. Just as "gridlock" has found himself a good woman who will be faithful to him (and he to her) within the Canon Laws of Episcopal Christianity, so I likewise look forward to someday finding my own "Help-Meet" and "Church-Mate" within Presbyterianism or Baptistry. Because it would be irrational suicide for me to accept anything less.
I am a young, financially self-sufficient American Male with a desire to father and train Children within a good marriage. The Laws of Caesar offer me NO PROTECTIONS WHATSOEVER. A vindictive woman could, with the Blessings of the God-State, take my house, my paycheck, my children, my assets, and legally destroy my reputation on her own whim. And my chances of successful Legal recourse against such an onslaught? Statistically, less than 10 percent. Even if I did nothing wrong (restraining orders, which can permanently ruin a legal reputation, can be issued against divorced husbands immediately upon request, with no proof whatsoever).
I cordially envy "gridlock" for finding himself a good woman whom he can love and trust within the canonical standards of the Episcopal Church -- and I hope I can likewise find a good Reformed Baptist or Presbyterian woman for myself. Because I am willing to depend on a Woman who is faithful to the Laws of the Church -- but I'd be a naive fool to trust in the Laws of the State.
I might as well just find a woman who hates me and is willing to destroy my reputation... and buy her a house every ten years.
Under current State Law, financially self-sufficient single American men should view State-Licensed Marriage the way that Jews view Adolf Hitler.
Yeah, Private Contract is obviously too "libertarian" and "utopian", even if it was good enough for Abraham and Sarah. Let's all "Hail, Caesar!!"... after all, he's done such a great job with the Institution of Marriage.
Best, OP
Indeed, by completing the appropriate legal paperwork (as though your wife were any stranger that you happened to want to endow with such things.)
But if you do not want government to define marriage, then there can be no automatic vesting of rights (e.g. automatic medical power of attorney) to someone just because you are married to them.
Sounds like you are okay with that. Not everyone is.
As per Deuteronomy 26, the entire population of Israel covenanted to obey the law of God - i.e., religious law, not civil law. You were saying something about the separation of church and state...
I don't remember, more than 25 years ago, saying my vows before the state. Rather, my young bride and I said our vows before God, and that is why we are still together.
What therefore God hath joined together, let no man(or state) put asunder.
It's evil alright, but not the way that you think.
What is evil is the fact that the state has cheapened marriage with its regulations. No longer is marriage viewed as a solemn vow made before God, but rather a civil contract that can be broken at a whim.
Why should I care how any government defines marriage? Caeser should stick to his business, I will defer to God when it comes to marriage.
If there was no automatic vesting of rights upon marriage, I am confindent that a "standard package" or rights would soon be developed, and entered into voluntarily upon marriage by the vast majority of couples. I would also expect that major Protestant denominations and the Roman Catholic Church would require granting of mutual rights upon marriage if a religious the ceremony were to be performed.
But these would be private arrangements between individuals. The state would have nothing to do with it.
And if a couple wants to deviate from the "standard package", they could do so. In fact, many do so already, with custom-tailored pre-nuptial agreements.
Fag Alert!
As per Deuteronomy 26, the entire population of Israel covenanted to obey the law of God; both religious law and civil law. All Ten Commandments -- both Tables, Religious (I-V) and Civil (VI-X).
What I was saying about the "separation of church and state" is this: following the Pentecostal (the Bible, not the Denomination) extension of the Gospel to Gentile Nations, the division of Duties between Magistrate and Presbyter has been brought into greater relief -- for Gentile Magistrates, not being allied to the Pre-Messianic Levitical Priesthood, are charged by the Apostle Paul with the execution of the Second Table of the Law, the Civil Law (see Romans 13:8-10, the explanatory exposition of Romans 13:1-7). To wit: punishment of Murder, Adultery, Theft, Fraud, and general Abusive Malfeasance (covetousness) -- and, for the most part, that's it.
The Civil Law of the Magistrate and the Religious Law of the Presbytery are, under the New Covenant, particularly executed under distinctly separate offices.
My point was simply this -- even under the Old Covenant, the division of Duties between the Judge and the Priest, while allied under that Old Covenant, were nonetheless distinct. Even then.
Best, OP
It's worse than that. Atheists will never view any civil contract as a "solemn vow made before God", but at least they have a legal obligation to fulfill their mutually-contracted business obligations. If your Business Partner tries to am-scray on a Business Contract, you can sue him for breach of contract and the Law will assign punishment as to the terms of that Contract.
Unless, of course, the "Contract" in question is a State-Licensed Marriage, in which case the State allows either partner to "take a mulligan" on the whole shebang for any reason they please -- or no reason at all ("no-fault divorce"... has anyone ever heard of "no-fault" breach of contract in the Business World of Private Contracts? I didn't think so).
If Marriage were returned to the sphere of Private Contract, it's possible that the Marriage Rate would (temporarily) decline by 10% or so -- as Marriage Supplicants came to terms with the fact that they would be legally bound to their Contracts, as would any Business Partner. But I'd also lay odds that the Divorce Rate would fall by at least 30% or better -- as flippant would-be Divorcees come to terms with a Reality of the Business World: when you sign on the dotted line, you incur definite Responsibilities. It's not just "all about you" anymore.
All that said, the fault is also our own (I speak here of The Church). Whether Righteous Charity (now defined as "Compulsory Welfare") or Goodly Temperance (now defined as "Coercive Prohibition") or the Sacrament of Marriage (now defined, categorized, and regulated by State License) the Power of Caesar expands when the Church does not:
Our Society is both "democratic" and nominally "religious". The rightful spheres of Church and Private authority have not been stolen from us in any militant Bolshevik revolution; we have given them away.
We have surrended them for a mess of porridge. Anyone wanna gamble together on the next State Lottery ticket? We'll go in half-sies together....
best, OP
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.