So-called common-law relationships between men and women have been prevalent in our society for a long time, and the number of such relationships is steadily increasing. It’s partly a matter of convenience; easy come, easy go. People don’t want long-term commitments, and they don’t want the hassle of a divorce if things don’t work out.
In a society where the Word of God is increasingly ignored or regarded as old-fashioned, one can understand such developments.
But the church doesn’t go scot-free either. Living in the midst of such a society is bound to have effects there too. More and more we hear of such arrangements. In the Gereformeerde Kerken of the Netherlands it has become an accepted thing. In many cases such couples are no longer reprimanded by the consistory. The GKN representative to the Synod of ‘86 told me: We read the Bible differently than you do. I responded by saying that it’s not so much a matter of reading the Bible differently. but a matter of believing or not believing what it clearly teaches.
In this confusing situation our young people need Biblical guidance. And it’s going to have to be better than what The Banner has been giving lately. In a recent Question and Answer column, a reader asked for Biblical evidence that such a relationship was an adulterous one. The answer by Prof. John Stek of Calvin Seminary pointed out that adultery was probably not the best description for such a relationship. One may grant that. But the answer gave no indication that such an arrangement was sinful, but replied that “before God they are bound to each other with all the moral obligations and commitments of marriage.” The answer gave little Biblical direction and was confusing at best.
In response to this answer, The Banner received a flurry of letters. As a further response to these letters, Editor Kuyvenhoven tried his hand at clarifying the situation with an article on “Marriage and Cohabitation” (Feb. 9, ‘87 Banner).
That did little to lift the fog. Young people reading it would still be quite confused about the whole business. Kuyvenhoven does agree that marriage affects all of life and therefore ought not to be a private affair. But then he summarizes his position as follows: “Yet it is not the parent, the priest, the preacher, or the judge who ‘marries’ the couple. They marry each other when they make covenant and seal it with a physical union.” And he further comments that “cohabitation outside of a recognized marriage is nearly always wrong.”
I can just imagine some of our young people reading that. If one of my children were involved in such a relationship, I would really hope that The Banner did not get into their hands! It would hinder rather than help both them and me.
What this statement really says is: If a couple just tell us that they have promised each other their love, and they have sealed it with a physical union, they are married. And we better accept them as such. Never mind the state and the church. Never mind that “piece of paper.” That doesn’t mean anything, as some disciples of the AACS were telling us in the 1960’s. The couple marry each other. They don’t have to bother with “all the formality” of an official wedding.
I call a statement such as that made by the editor irresponsible, and onesided at best. Of course the vows made by the couple to each other are an important part of marriage. But there is more to it than that. Imagine the chaos we would get if that were all there were to it. We’d suddenly have all kinds of couples telling us: We’re married. We promised each other our love last night, and sealed it with intercourse. And we have The Banner backing us up.
Let’s listen a moment to some saner advice:
Prof. W. H. Velema of the Christelijk Gereformeerde Seminary at Apeldoorn, the Netherlands, says that although the Bible does not contain specific legal norms for having a marriage declared official, there was never any doubt as to whether a female was married or not. “The marriage ceremony was an official occurrence.” He goes on to say:
The norm dictates that such a confirmation takes place. What is at stake is the integrity of marriage as instituted by God. If the church were to accept common law marriages, it would in effect be undermining marriage as the permanent communion of love and fidelity.
The church, parents and friends all have a right to know whether a young couple is married or not. Marriage is a gift of God; its confirmation must be celebrated publicly and recognized officially.
Listen further to W. G. De Vries, in his fine book, Marriage in Honor:
Of course, one can say: “Marriage does not come about through the marriage certificate, just as a child does not originate through a certificate of birth.” The marriage solemnization is preceded by the marriage choice. First both have become one in thought and now they wish to become one in marriage. That is now officially registered and sealed by the State.
Even though the State does not bring about the marriage, she does indeed solemnize the marriage. The State does not bring husband and wife to each other. No, those two stand beside each other in sincere love, presenting themselves to the State as two people who have chosen for each other until death parts them. The State fastens “the lock” that they desire around both their lives, making their marriage absolute and binding before God and man. Only then are they bound to one another with bonds not of this earth but laid by God Himself.
We must not think that this solemnization of marriage by the State is something of minor importance . . . . They become a new unit in life in the presence of their family, society, the Church, and the State . . .
Something of the above should have been pointed out in The Banner. Our young people need clear, Biblical guidance in these confusing times. That was, unfortunately, not provided by The Banner in this particular context.
J. Tuininga, Lethbridge, Alerta