Recently, I was in a car with a few of my colleagues—all older and smarter than me—and I began making outrageous statements (as is my custom) to see if any of them would rise to the occasion and correct me as a young fool in need of some schooling. Unfortunately, no one took the bait. I’m not sure what that means, but I’m hoping that someone here will take the challenge and set me straight, if I’m in need of edjewkashun. Here are some bullet points of my thoughts on the topic of marriage and divorce—and its implications in the church:

• Marriage is something that God (not a pastor or justice of the peace) performs (Genesis 2:22; Matthew 19:6). It occurs when God seals a man and woman into a life-long, covenant relationship with the community of faith as witnesses. Governments and religious bodies may or may not recognize this union and confer on it various legal privileges or responsibilities, but their recognition (or lack thereof) in no way legitimizes (or delegitimizes) the union.
• Therefore, divorce among believers is not a legal issue, but an issue of “church discipline”, as it is a breaking of a covenant within the body of Christ (Matthew 18:15-17). Reconciliation, not legal dissolution, should be the first step of dealing with it. If an offended party refuses to reconcile, or an offending party refuses to repent, there would appear to be biblical substantiation for the church body to expel that person (or both) from the covenant community and for the faithful party to separate him/herself from his/her spouse indefinitely until the sinning party repents and is restored to fellowship.

Now, maybe these statements don’t seem that inflammatory or controversial, but consider the implications. I’m arguing that there is no biblical concept of “secular” marriage, since marriage is a covenant institution inextricably intertwined with its purpose as a reflection of the Trinity and the relationship of Christ and His church and as a means of advancing the gospel. Therefore, …

• Are unbelievers really married? Apparently so, because Paul gives instructions to people who are married to unbelievers (1 Corinthians 7:14).
• Do new believers, who were previously married, need to get “re-married” or affirm their covenant in the presence of the believing community?
• Just because a couple is legally divorced, are they really divorced in God’s sight, if they have not gone through church discipline?
• What would a church look like if it actually applied these principles? How long would it take before it was sued or the pastor “ridden out on a rail”? (Someone, please explain that euphemism, while you’re at it.)
• On a personal note, I would like to take my Holy Ghost time machine back in church history and strangle the person whose idea it was to relinquish marriage into the hands of secular government.

Now it’s your turn …

Maybe marriage isn’t about finding the one woman or man who was chosen for you “from the foundations of the earth”–unless, of course, you’re a Calvinist. Maybe it’s about making a relatively uninformed, risky decision in the midst of raging hormones, complete lack of experience and astounding ignorance about what the future holds. Then, take that decision and give it time, energy, commitment, blood, sweat and tears, and you get something that rivals a storybook romance. That’s what I thought of after hearing this morning’s StoryCorps episode on NPR. This is three minutes worth savoring: Seymour and Marcia Gottlieb

Because I’m too lazy to put together an actual essay on same-sex marriage, I’ll just string together some general reflections on the topic that may or may not make sense:

The church has lost its leverage. Because of high rates of divorce/adultery/porn-addiction/scandal, the church has been lax in presenting a biblical model of marriage. Like the Israelites who appalled their Canaanite neighbors with their perversion and violence, it rings hollow when Christian leaders make lofty definitions of marriage to which they themselves don’t seem to be able to adhere.

Marriage is about God. As a religious sacrament, the primary purpose of marriage is not to provide a context for sexual relations, to ensure the continuation of the human race, or to make sure that guys have someone on hand to keep them well groomed and fed. Marriage is primarily about God. It is a means through which we understand the Trinity and the relationship of Christ to the Church. It is a tool God uses to make us more like Him. As such, it is an agent of sanctification, a means of revelation, a model of reconciliation. Everything else is corollary.

There’s no such thing as secular marriage. Therefore, marriage cannot be secular. This is not to say that a secular government may not allow couples or groups of people to enter into legal arrangements that share characteristics with marriage. Business partnerships, powers of attorney, adoption, civil unions all share some of the characteristics of marriage. But they are not marriage. Why? From a biblical perspective, marriage happens when a man and woman are joined together in a covenant relationship. It is something God does that may or may not be acknowledged by civil authorities or the church.

What business is it of theirs? If I accept the above statements, I must naturally ask why a secular civil government has any interest defining (or un-defining, for that matter) marriage. Frankly, it’s none of their business, and the Florida and California ballot initiatives attempting to define marriage were intrusions of the state. It would appear that, out of fear, the church has validated this intrusion by lobbying for a constitutional definition of marriage. Granted, I understand the practical concerns, but isn’t this setting a dangerous precedent?

So, what about “gay marriage”? Simultaneously, I must ask why secular gays are even interested in the sacrament of marriage–why are civil unions not enough? Just sayin’ …