A Season for Spiritual War:

[mfblume]

Civil marriage or not, without a public ceremony with vows made to each other, it's not marriage.

[Aquila]

I see no issue with a ceremony. We too had a ceremony.

However, if one wishes to argue that a ceremony is "prescribed" in Scripture, I'd have to differ. In fact, there are several manners in which marriages were established in Scripture. If we research the Scripture, marriage is clearly a private arrangement between two families or a couple. It is more akin to a private contract than a "civil institution". Even today, the Jewish "Ketubah" (a private contract) is viewed as holding more spiritual authority than "civil marriage" contracts. Quakers and other religious bodies agree.

"For the right joining in marriage is the work of the Lord only, and not the priests' or the magistrates'; for it is God's ordinance and not man's; and therefore Friends cannot consent that they should join them together: for we marry none; it is the Lord's work, and we are but witnesses" ~ George Fox, 1669

Outsiders often criticized Quaker couples for "living in sin" because they married each other without priests or ministers. Quakers understood that it is God, not the State, that unites man and woman in the bonds of the marital covenant. For this reason, some couples chose to marry within the community of believers without registering their marriages with the government, a tradition dating back to Quakerism's earliest days.

Now, while our fellowship isn't "Quaker", there are a number of us who have Quaker backgrounds. And this is reflected in our practice.

Here are two videos of two types of "Quaker" weddings. One is rather informal, the other is semi-formal. Notice, both are "self-officiated" by the couple. Quakers have blessed marriages like these for hundreds of years. These used to fall under "common law" before the state hijacked marriage and made it a civil liberty granted only by the state. Today, Quaker couples can either have a meeting registrar file their marriages with the state or have their marriages kept private in what is known as a "marriage in care of the meeting".

[Sean]

It doesn't matter if folks are gay, straight, marrying beasts or marrying their laptop. God honors civil authorities paperwork.



LOL

[Sean]

Chris....watched those videos...looks legit to me.

[Sean]

The second video was really cool.

[Sean]

Here is your newfangled state sanctioned wedding video....



https://youtu.be/V92tbalSTm0?list=PL...m-HsvAIdc&t=32



LOL

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I see no issue with a ceremony. We too had a ceremony.

However, if one wishes to argue that a ceremony is "prescribed" in Scripture, I'd have to differ. In fact, there are several manners in which marriages were established in Scripture. If we research the Scripture, marriage is clearly a private arrangement between two families or a couple. It is more akin to a private contract than a "civil institution". Even today, the Jewish "Ketubah" (a private contract) is viewed as holding more spiritual authority than "civil marriage" contracts. Quakers and other religious bodies agree.

"For the right joining in marriage is the work of the Lord only, and not the priests' or the magistrates'; for it is God's ordinance and not man's; and therefore Friends cannot consent that they should join them together: for we marry none; it is the Lord's work, and we are but witnesses" ~ George Fox, 1669

Outsiders often criticized Quaker couples for "living in sin" because they married each other without priests or ministers. Quakers understood that it is God, not the State, that unites man and woman in the bonds of the marital covenant. For this reason, some couples chose to marry within the community of believers without registering their marriages with the government, a tradition dating back to Quakerism's earliest days.

Now, while our fellowship isn't "Quaker", there are a number of us who have Quaker backgrounds. And this is reflected in our practice.

Here are two videos of two types of "Quaker" weddings. One is rather informal, the other is semi-formal. Notice, both are "self-officiated" by the couple. Quakers have blessed marriages like these for hundreds of years. These used to fall under "common law" before the state hijacked marriage and made it a civil liberty granted only by the state. Today, Quaker couples can either have a meeting registrar file their marriages with the state or have their marriages kept private in what is known as a "marriage in care of the meeting".

Self-uniting marriage:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-uniting_marriage

It's not the ceremony that is stressed but the witnesses seing the commitment made publicly in a setting for that purpose.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

It's not the ceremony that is stressed but the witnesses seing the commitment made publicly in a setting for that purpose.

I don't see anything wrong with having witnesses.

But do witnesses have to be present, or can they concur that a couple is committed before or after the fact? Do we have Scripture stating that witnesses must "witness" the "wedding"? Or was it a cultural development?

It is interesting to note that marriage used to be viewed as a "natural right" between a man and a woman, a right endowed by the Creator. This is why marriage was originally under "common law" and why "common law marriage" statutes existed throughout the territories and throughout the frontier. Many times a man and woman would be miles from civilization, family, church, etc. and the man would propose, or she would offer her hand in marriage. The man would take her in and they'd consummate their union. They'd then present themselves as husband and wife to any who inquired, but a big "to do" or "ceremony" wasn't always carried out. Many would even write the date of their union in their family Bibles. Most don't realize this, but this is where having a marriage certificate printed in every family Bible started. It was filled out by the couple and witnesses were often added later. It was also rather common for the marriage certificate in their family Bible to be the only document stating that the two were married. It could be weeks or months before a circuit riding preacher road through their territory. And when he did, he'd bless the couple in their home (not establish their union) and continue on in his circuit. The marriage was seen as being established through cohabitation with habit and repute. It wasn't until after the government hijacked marriage with civil marriage licensing to prevent blacks from marrying whites that this societal understanding began to fall away, and marriage began to be seen as a distinct "civil institution" and began excluding couples whose union wasn't formally filed with the state. The implications of this are rather serious. Essentially, by ordering that marriages by "licensed" by the state, the state was denying natural rights by declaring any union outside of it's authority as being not legally recognized. This turned marriage into a "civil right" as opposed to allowing it to remain a "natural right". And being a "civil right" it began to be regulated by civil statute until we have the insanity we see today in divorce law and the "civil right" being extended to gays and God knows where it will stop. And since it is "civil"... it must be legally protected, recognized, and anything relating to it is now subject to civil law, civil statute, and civil litigation. Which... endangers Christian businesses, churches, and ministries.

Most don't realize that common law marriage is older than civil marriage, that all marriages (ceremony or not) were under common law, and that marriage under common law being recognized as the most prevalent form of marriage goes back as far as ancient Greece. Typically, the ultra wealthy, royalty, etc. had the big ceremonies and contracts that were almost considered treaties. Why? A lot of money and power was involved. But the common folk, the common folk were governed by common law. In fact, even the Catholic church's own historic documentation indicates that early on the church blessed couples who established and consummated their unions after the fact in most cases. It wasn't until the royal officials wanted the church to prevent marriage between royalty and peasants did the church began mandating church sanction first. And it wasn't even until the Council of Trent in 1563 that marriage was officially deemed one of the seven sacraments.

[Aquila]

What's also sad, is that because of a bunch of self-appointed "internet pastors", this thread is now miles from the original subject.

But no admin DARE oppose them in their desire to "pastor" us on what should be an enjoyable discussion forum.

[houston]

Originally Posted by Aquila

What a couple does in their home to celebrate their love isn't stomach turning. That only reveals how you view your own marriage and your own sexual hang ups. Why not lighten up, smile if a couple celebrates their love? I have news for you, loving couples often do far more than eat breakfast in the nude. Love can be playful, joyful, and celebrated. And if it is so "stomach turning", why obsess about it and bring it up nearly every time you guys talk to me? Now, in my opinion, bringing it up almost every time you talk to me, that's far more creepy than a couple having a loving afternoon together as God designed them. For the couple, that time came and went. A precious memory. But someone is still obsessing over it and wanting to talk about it all the time. That's not cool. Not cool at all.

The truth is, this is only being used as a stone to throw by a hater. Haters will hate. And they salivate at the thought of throwing accusations in the face of everyone around them. It helps them feel more... "holy".

All you can to do pray for the hater.

I don’t know who the he77 you think you’re addressing.Matters not how many times you posted it, I never read it. So why would I celebrate your “love” if it was assumed that you’re living in sin? Furthermore, I would not celebrate anyone’s “love” if they were to post their experience here. No one needs to know what you do naked in your kitchen. That is a very distasteful thing to post, especially in the company of women. I am not married. And I have no sexual hangups. I could tell of experiences that would make Jezebel and Mary Magdalene look like saints..
So sit back down, little boy. I’m not buying into your victim complex.