The State, The Church, and Marriage

This Podcast plays a series of 3 lectures on the issues of Incorporated Churches and the 501c3 status.  I'm unsure if all 3 were actually done by the same person, they're similar voices at least.  It's a very good insightful informative lecture.  I like how he does not defend those Churches that are incorporated yet try to act like they're not.

I just have 3 objections to it.

He makes reference to House churches early on.  But when talking about the issues surrounding having a church building and property for it, how to legally do that and pay for it.  Everything he does say is very good, but he doesn't bring up House Churches.  The New Testament Church never met in church buildings, they met in each other's houses. Church Buildings did not begin to exist until the 3rd century.  Interestingly the oldest still standing church building was already engaging in Idolatry under the Catholic excuse for it.

Secondly, in the third lecture he talks way too much about pastoral authority.  The "under-shepherd" may have been a thing in near eastern shepherding, but it's not acknowledged in the Biblical imagery of the Church as a flock of sheep, Jesus is the only Shepherd, he doesn't need to delegate like a human shepherd would.  His logic essentially says if you're a pastor you're not another of the stupid sheep, you're above them.  That is the heart of what the Doctrine of the Nicolations is.  For both of the first 2 of the pictures of The Church he discussed he was effectively folding the pastor into the role of Christ, and it seemed he was thinking along the same lines for the third also.

The role of the Pastor is to proclaim God's Word, but he's not infallible in interpreting it.  What an individual chooses to do is between him and the Holy Spirit.

Finally, he spoke a lot on Homosexuality and Gay Marriage, mostly at the end.  Clearly he's part of the "we need to oppose legalizing Gay Marriage" crowd.  All that talk about how conceding the State authority over the Church by even using the court system. Yet he can't apply the same logic to Marriage.

My view is not just that you are conceding the state authority over Marriage by even getting a legal marriage license from the state.  Or as a church by seeking for your pastor the right to legally marry people in his church.  But you're also conceding it by caring whether or not legal marriage expands to include same sex pairings or polygamy or whatever else and going out of your way to politically oppose such things.  If you're afraid of being forced to perform a marriage you don't approve of, then you shouldn't have sought that legal responsibility from the state to begin with, and should now give it up.

Some "conservative" Christians may try to respond to me with "I'm denying the state the authority by not allowing it to do what it doesn't have the authority to do".  It's a self defeating logic, you're still conceding that the state can have authority over marriage by thinking how they define it matters at all.

Some may insist that it looks like Marriage is a legally recognized institution in The Law of Moses.  I could possibly do an in-dept explanation of how the kind of legal status marriage had in ancient Israel or any ancient civilization is quite unlike in the modern United States.  Main point is that OT legal marriage still did not involve permission slips from the government.

But that would be besides the point.  That was all in the Old Covenant, which was always imperfect and has now been done away with.  The New Testament says a lot about marriage, largely about it as a picture of the relationship between Christ and The Church.  And there is nothing in anything it tells us about seeking to have our marriages recognized by the state.  Likewise there was no state to marry Adam and Eve, it was just between them and God.

The lecture talks about how all the advantages of a legal incorporated Church are a repudiation of God and lack of Trust in Him.  Well, I think Christians should view the advantages of legal marriage the same way.

So as a Christian, I view the Legal status of Marriage as irrelevant to it's Sanctity.

As a Libertarian, I've decided unlike when I was a younger Libertarian not to seek Legal Marriage being ended altogether, that itself implied my caring to much, let the people who want to bring the state into marriage do it.  But I want people educated.  I saw a movie once where some cops told a woman because their marriage wasn't legally recognized the state could take her child.  I can see the state trying to pull that, but it's really the opposite, it is by getting a legal marriage licence you are conceding the state authority over any products of that marriage.

I have sought in the past to convince fellow libertarians they should support legalizing Gay Marriage.  Perhaps my logic there was flawed, I'm uncertain, but it's a delicate issue.  Many have responded to that by explaining how since they oppose the state having that authority to begin with, expanding who can get married only expands the state's power.

I may update that post, to say how I feel in this context legal marriage should just be viewed as a type of legal contract allowing more then one individuals to share their property and assets, one more binding then most such contracts.  And that those contracts should not be offered only to certain people on primarily religious grounds.

I recently made a post in a Facebook group where I said the following.

"I too would prefer Marriage have no legal status at all.   

But I want to explain here one reason why many Homosexuals feel having a legally recognized marriage is important.  

Many Homosexuals have attempted to do things independent of Marriage like leaving their Same-Sex Lover the sole or primary beneficiary of their Will, or give them the legal authority to decide what to do if they're ever hospitalized without the ability to make decisions on their own. But then their relatives who were disapproving of that relationship when it came to enact such a Will attempt to challenge it in court and have often been successful. Marriage seems to be the only legal contract immune to this problem.  

So many Homosexual partnerships feel they need legal marriages to even have the basic rights straight couples have without it."

I apologize if that felt poorly communicated, I didn't go though more then one draft like I do here.   I got some interesting responses.

It seems that the laws need to be changed to favor individuals rather than marriages. Laws need to be fewer (MUCH fewer), more functional, concise, and fair. As I see it, we have a severe problem with stupidity of laws in this country. Making new stupid, unfair, rambling, open-to-interpretation laws won't fix that.

 Except that marriage is not immune to it. Wills and other legal documents are challenged all the time for undue influence and other reasons even in marriage.

So I don't fully know the answers to how to deal with these issues.  It's something Libertarian minded people need to talk about.

Now, going back to the trilogy of lectures I referenced at the start of this.  It helped clarify to me why I as a Libertarian do not feel Anachro-Capitalism (or Ayn Rand) is true Libertarianism.  I've talked here about my disagreements with most fellow American Libertarians before.  But now I know that even the logic that Corporations are separate from the state is wrong,  Corporations are by definition state regulated affiliations.

How should Libertarians approach Gay Marriage?

Obviously all or at least most Libertarians agree that we ultimately are uninterested in legal marriage altogether.  It should be just between the individuals being married, and if their religious then they're God or possibly Church. Mosque, Synagogue, Temple ect.  You shouldn't need a certificate from the Government at all.

The question is as long as we do have legal marriage, should we not care about the what kinds are allowed?  Some Libertarians seem to take that approach and focus only on the ultimate goal.  And I feel they do this largely to try not to alienate social conservatives and Christians.

But I believe we need to firmly hold that as long as it is a legal institution there should be no restrictions on it.  Gay Marriage, Polygamy, Polyandry, Polyamory, Group Marriages, ect.  Anything between Consenting adults.  I believe it's taking away the state's ability to restrict it that will cause legal marriage to crumble.

We're not gonna get our goal over night.  Just as a full end to the drug war begins with legalization of Marijuana.  So the war against government control of marriages has a beginning fight too.

I know some feel like expanding legal marriage is only expanding government power.  I feel in this context legal marriage should be viewed just as a binding contract more them more then one indivdual, and and eligibility for that contract should not be limited.

As I said before a desire to not alienate "conservatives" is why some Libertarians don't want to say that.  Problem is I feel the Ron Paul campaign of 2008 and 2012 won us all the converts we're gonna get out of the right for the time being.  It's that the Left sees us as merely a variation of Conservatives that we need to counteract in order to grow our movement.

At any rate I've elsewhere on this Blog I've laid groundwork for how to convince Fundamentalist Christians to be ok with legal Gay Marriage, whether they morally approve of it or not.

Sergius and Bacchus

Sergius (or Serge) and Bacchus were fourth-century Roman Christian soldiers revered as martyrs and saints by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches. Their feast day is 7 October.

The saints' story is told in the Greek text known as The Passion of Sergius and Bacchus. The story is ostensibly set during the reign of Roman Emperor Galerius (305 to 311), though it contains a number of contradictions and anachronisms that make dating difficult. The work itself may date to the mid-5th century. (Woods, David (2000). "The Origin of the Cult of SS. Sergius and Bacchus". From The Military Martyrs. Retrieved June 25, 2009.)

They are the most famous example of two Christian who engages in a Adelphopoiesis, or adelphopoiia type union.

The Politics of Family Values

Family is important in The Bible, very important. But, it's also been important to Pagans as well.  Some modern Christians seem to think only Judeo-Christians have ever valued the importance of Family, but that's not the case. There have of course been certain differences in how different cultures have viewed the Family.

My point today is, the Idea of "Family Values" Politics is a product of Pagan Rome, one of many aspects of Roman Pagan religion that became Christianized chiefly during the 4th Century A.D. (From Constantine to Theodosius) when the Church married The World. It's popular to talk about that as a time when Rome became Christian, but those of us who truly follow Biblical principles know it was really for the most part Rome changing the Church, not the Church changing Rome.

Specifically this aspect of Pagan Roman culture was masterminded by Gaius Julius Octavius Caesar Augustus. The man who effectively ended the Republic and ushered in the Principate, and who in my mind was a forerunner of The Antichrist.

A few decades into his reign, Augusts began pushing "Family Values" legislation, on the (claimed) belief that the deterioration of the Family was hurting the Roman state. But just like all our modern politicians who make themselves champions of "Family Values" he couldn't even enforce them within his own family. So in 2 B.C. he was forced to exile his own Daughter, Julia The Elder, for cheating on the Husband he forced her to marry (also forcing said Husband, future Emperor Tiberius, to divorce the woman he was already married to and was very much in love with). Another scandal occurred again latter with her daughter Julia The Younger.

This continued to be important to upper class of Rome.  I know people have this image in their head of how "Decadent and Horny" Rome was, Chuck Missler who I respect still naively refers to how "Documented' said decadence was.   But the truth is the documentation all comes from Historians of the Senatorial class, and all for the purpose of vilifying certain Emperors hostile to their aristocratic interests, so such activity while likely true to an extent was beyond any doubt exaggerated.

In my view, what actually weakens the Biblical family is the Government getting involved in Family affairs at all, whether with a Liberal or a Conservative agenda. God ordained the Family BEFORE the State.

I view the definition of marriage Biblically as being between a man and a woman.  But it doesn't in my mind effect that at all if homosexuals live together, call it marriage and such marriages are recognized by the state. To me in an ideal world the State shouldn't be "recognizing" any Marriages, it's not their damn business.

The way Christians should lead is by example, by following our family values ourselves, and showing that living that way is healthier and more fulfilling then just screwing everything in sight. Using force never achieves anything.

Do The Hebrew Scriptures condone Polygamy as much as we assume?

Before I get into what the Bible says here. I want to remind everyone that I'm a Libertarian in my political views (at least Socially). So regardless of what Marriage should be Biblically, Spiritually, Morally or Ethically I absolutely do NOT want the state regulating it in any way. I would rather marriage not be a civil institution at all, but as long as it is I fully support legalizing Gay Marriage, Polygamy, Bigamy, Polygyny, Polyandry, Polyamory, Groups Marriages, open marriages and so on.  As long as all parties involved are consenting adults it's none of my or the state's business.  Now to get to the subject at hand.

Does The Bible define Marriage as "Between one man and one woman" as so many of my fellow Fundamentalists say?

First off marriage is an English word. Ancient Israel did have an institution of a union between a man and a woman, and the New Testament uses that relationship symbolically a great deal, (The Church is the Bride and Christ the Bridegroom, but on our wedding night it will be the Groom's Blood presented on the sheets). The gender designation of the parties in that union is specific.  In fact in Hebrew the word for woman is also the word for wife, and the word for man (as in the adult gender distinction, not as in mankind) is also the word for husband. But the modern custom of marriage practiced by western Christianity has numerous differences in function and practice from that union, well before we debate the gender distinction or number of people involved. I've written a dissertation on the verses alleged to condemn homosexuality altogether, they don't.

It is popular to point out that Polygamy was practiced in the Old Testament. We casually use polygamy to refer to a very specific form of polygamy, the word strictly speaking covers any kind of marriage with more then two parties involved. The polygamy practiced in Ancient Israel was Polygyny (One man with plural wives) and even a specific form of that, Harem Polygyny/Concubinism, which involved each Wife/Concubine having children of their own (or trying to anyway) and raising their own children, creating basically mini-families within the family. This can create rivalries for the favor of the father, and increase the chance of incest, if the children by different mothers aren't entirely raised together the natural barrier to being attracted to one might not develop as it normally would.

To call it common is simply misleading, like in most polygamous cultures it was mainly the wealthy and upper-classes actually practicing it. The Torah never outright forbids it in general, but Deuteronomy 17:17 in laying out guidelines for the future Kings says "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold." They failed to obey this (Some anyway, at-least the first three or four, and especially Solomon) but it's interesting that the individual most capable of supporting that lifestyle is the one explicitly advised against it.

The Law of Moses tolerates many things that are still morally disapproved of.  There are no actual laws in the Exodus or Deuteronomy law codes against Drinking/Drunkenness or Prostitution either, but endless verses making clear they're disapproved of morally.

God only made one wife for Adam (Lilith is extra-Biblical nonsense, drawn on misunderstanding Genesis 1 and 2 and how they relate to each other). He could have made many more just as easily as he made Havah(Eve) but he didn't.

The first account of polygyny being practiced is among Cain's descendants in Genesis 4, now it would be unfair to condemn them based solely on that descent, but it is possibly a revealing context. The Midrash interprets the names as an attack on polygamy. Adah is there interpreted as the deposed one, implying that Lamech spurned her in favor of Zillah, whose own name is understood to mean she shaded herself [from Zillah at Lamech's side].

When it is practiced among the protagonists of the Biblical narrative, the results are jealous rivalries between the wives and their offspring. Abraham and Jacob were both forced into their situations by circumstances more or less beyond their control, they were not very extreme examples and yet those problems still occurred, and are the root of the Middle East crisis we have today (Arabs being mostly derived from Ishmael). Later Leviticus 18:18 does specifically condemn the kind Jacob engaged in, marrying two sisters.

I've seen some pro-polygyny sites make a point of Miriam being punished for disapproving of Moses's marriage to a "Cushite woman". I view the point being a condemnation of racism, Miriam was objecting to marriage to a foreigner, not a second wife. And besides, scholars don't even agree that this was a separate wife form Zipporah (We don't know the ultimate Genesis 10 background of the Kenites for certain, and there were Cushites in Arabia). And some would interpret that it didn't matter if Moses was in the wrong or not, Miriam was still out of line, I don't like that way of looking at it though. I've seen websites even cite Esau's polygyny as an endorsement of it, I don't like to vilify Esau as much as Jewish tradition does, but how he ran his family was certainly viewed critically by the Author of Genesis.

It's clearly a source of problems in David's family, the Bathsheba incident was the finale trigger, but it drew on roots already there, from seeds planted by David's polygyny. And with Solomon it's firmly linked to his inevitable corruption and falling away into idolatry, though their mostly being foreign, (point being religiously foreign not ethnically) is also a factor. Solomon didn't follow the other guidelines given to the Kings in Deuteronomy 17 either, which means the connection to that chapter isn't a coincidence.