by Josh Bryant
Many a pastor has heard the phrase "we're married in God's eyes" as a justification for cohabitation outside of marriage - at least cohabitation prior to a wedding ceremony. The argument is that Scripture does not describe a wedding ceremony and thus it is not required. All that Scripture requires is a commitment to be married. Although it is claimed that this line of reasoning is based on Scripture, it ignores an overarching theme of the New Testament.
Marriage in the New Testament is clearly utilized to depict Christ's relationship with the church. Jesus described the Kingdom of God in the parable of the wedding feast (Mt. 22:1-14). In that parable, the King throws a wedding banquet for His Son. He sent servants to summon those who were invited, but the did not come. In fact, the invitees mistreated and killed the servants. The King instructed the servants to go into the world and invite everyone to the feast, and the banquet was filled with guests. Paul expands on the parable in a much more practical sense in demonstrating how marriage reflects Christ's relationship with the church (Eph. 5:22-33). John described the celebration after the defeat of Babylon as a vast multitude saying "Hallelujah, because our Lord God, the Almighty, reigns! Let us be glad, rejoice, and give him glory, because the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his bride has prepared herself... Blessed are those invited to the marriage feast of the Lamb!" (Rev. 19:6b-7, 9b).
Clearly there is soteriological and eschatological significance in marriage. Couples often are forced to invite people they barely know and rarely see to their wedding. Likewise, we are commanded to go and make disciples of all nations, to invite everyone we meet to the wedding feast of the Lamb. Inasmuch as there is no salvation without a public confession of Christ as Lord (cf. Rom. 10:8-10 "If you confess with your mouth...you will be saved...one confesses with the mouth, resulting in salvation."), there is no marriage without a public confession of one man's and one woman's confession of their commitment to lifelong fidelity.
Additionally, the church is the original arbiter of biblical marriage. Government involvement in marriage is a relatively new creation. In 1215, the church created the "banns of marriage" which required a public proclamation of the marriage from the pulpit. It wasn't until the 14th century that the church conscripted governments to help enforce the banns of marriage by requiring governmental permission to get married - a marriage license.
Now in the 21st century, government's role in marriage and marriage-like relationships is starting to deteriorate. Most scholars agree that Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), has ended the notion that cohabitation outside of marriage is a crime. Common law marriage and "palimony" still enter into the picture when a relationship ends that does not involve a wedding ceremony. Marvin v. Marvin, 18 C.3d 660 (1976). All that remains is the different tax treatment of lawfully married couples. Some legislatures have even taken up legislation that would remove the government from the process all together after Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), which legalized same-sex marriage across the country. As such, the church is likely to be the sole arbiter of marriage; legally the institution seems to be losing favor.
All that to say, marriage without ceremony is no marriage - at least not in the biblical use of the word. Pastors should not shy away from arguments that a couple is married in the eyes of God. Without the church, that is not biblically the case.
Church government can stir up feelings of anxiety in some as they remember contentious business meetings that frac-tured churches. For others, it is the singular issue that separates them from other like-minded believers. Some denominations follow the bishop, while others follow the elders. Others still adhere to the self-rule of the local congregation. But what does the Bible say?
Jonathan Leeman presents a persuasive case for what he calls "elder-led congregationa-lism" in his new book in the Church Basics series by 9Marks called Understanding the Congre-gation's Authority. While I do not completely agree with Leeman's conclusions and coverage of the issue of congregational authority, I still recommend the book for several reasons. Here are 4 reasons to read Understanding the Congregation's Authority.
1. To understand the congregational model in light of all of redemptive history. Leeman does a superb job of showing from redemptive history how authority rests in every member of the church to protect and promote the who and the what of the gospel. In other words, Leeman argues that the church congregation has the authority to decide who should be affirmed or disaffirmed with church membership based on what it has decided is a true confession of the gospel. While his final argument is drawn primarily from Matthew 16 and 18, he effectively tracks the course of that argument throughout the Old Testament as a precursor to church government, and the use of congregational rule in the New Testament.
2. To understand the gravity of church membership. You cannot read this book and look at church membership as just another organization you belong to. When every person in the congregation collectively utilizes the keys of the kingdom that Jesus taught in Matthew 16 and 18 - when the congregation looses and binds - clearly the decisions of the congregation have an eternal weight. If what we loose on earth is loosed in heaven and what is bound on earth is bound in heaven, we have some serious decisions to make. Considering the weight of the argument in favor of congregationalism, this makes church membership a very grave matter indeed.
3. To understand the important role every church member plays in protecting and promoting the gospel. If you are a member of a church, you have a job to do. Yes, that job does include considering every profession of faith - every confession of Jesus as the Christ. It does include those times when a member's actions fail to align with that profession and the church must step in to "discipline" the member. But it also includes those times of pleading with the lost to come to Christ. Leeman does a great job explaining how every member is important, and that a member's vote is not piecemeal or insignificant. It is part of using the keys of the kingdom.
4. To understand the balance between congregational rule and submission to spiritual leaders. Leeman's treatment of this issue is probably the best part of the book. While it seems like a paradox to say that the congregation is in charge but it must submit to the authority of its pastors, it only seems that way. In short, pastors show the congregation how to use the keys of the kingdom (to which the congregation submits) and the congregation does it (which is the exercise of its authority). This neither means that the congregation becomes a rubber stamp in approving the actions of the pastors, nor does it mean that the pastor can be overbearing to get things done in the church. When the balance is out of whack, biblical church government breaks down.
While Leeman made a persuasive case for elder-led congregationalism in established churches, there remain contexts in which I believe other models of church governance are appropriate, and I believe that there are other ways in which congregational rule can manifest itself than just in terms of who is and is not a member of the church. Paul told Titus to appoint elders in the churches in Crete (Titus 1:5). While Leeman may be correct that the term "appoint" implies congregational consent in Crete, the fact remains that those churches existed before Titus appointed elders. The implication from the passage is that Titus oversaw all of those church, as if he were a bishop of sorts. It not only seems to be the biblical case, but also a matter of pragmatics in church planting among people of limited Bible knowledge and access that in a church's infancy there may not be sufficient spiritual maturity to identify false teachers, properly navigate the minefield of church discipline when it is necessary, and so forth. While the elder or bishop in those contexts should show how its done rightly so that the church matures into one in which the congregation can take the keys of the kingdom, every congregation that is formed doesn't appear to be automatically able to make wise use of those keys. Congregational rule should be the goal in such cases, but it does not appear to be automatic.
Furthermore, Leeman's presentation focuses primarily on membership decisions - both in terms of those entering the church and those exiting the church. There are a multitude of other contexts in which the congregation should exercise authority. Leeman's presentation inadequately addresses things like church budgets, ministry priorities, and other administrative and operational aspects of the church.
In any case, this is a book I can recommend. It forces readers to deal with issues that are uncomfortable in terms of what church membership means. Nevertheless, those issues are biblical and should be utilized in churches to ensure the purity of the bride of Christ. The material is presented in such a fashion as it is easy to understand, regardless of whether it addresses every context in which congregations should exercise authority or every context in which strict congregationalism may not yet be appropriate.
Dr. Jonathan Leeman is an elder at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C. and is the editorial director at 9Marks. I received a free copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for a fair and unbiased review.
Onward, by Russell Moore, is a refreshing analysis at the state of Christianity in America in light of the moral revolution, and a clear and convincing ecclesiology and ethic that the church should adopt. His argument is premised on the notion that the "Bible Belt" is fraying - that Christians are no longer (if we were ever) a "moral majority." He notes that the movement by that name was not a religious movement, but a political one that included people who desired a return to Judeo-Christian American values, but did not necessarily profess Christ or seek to advance His kingdom. His assessment serves as an indictment against a church improperly focused on utilizing state power to make Christian behavior and thought normative when the Bible depicts the gospel as abnormal by the standards of the world. Here are 7 reasons to read this book:
1. To align social, cultural, and political engagement with a proper balance between American citizenship and the Kingdom of God.
In setting forth several pillars of Christian ethic, Dr. Moore superbly ties them back to the Kingdom of God and the need to acknowledge that while the Kingdom is here in colonies and embassies which we call the church, it is not yet here in full. While we should stand against injustice and defend the "least of these," we cannot expect that the law will institute the Kingdom in full. Only Jesus can do that when He returns, so by expecting governments to do it invests them with authority that does not belong to them. Until His return, the church has the keys to the Kingdom, not the state. We cannot admit just anyone to the Kingdom. Scripture has set forth those requirements, and we must be consistent in how we admit people to our churches. As Dr. Moore points out, our vote for who we receive as members of our churches is as or more important than our vote for who should be President.
2. To rediscover the strangeness of the Gospel.
The church no longer exists in a culture that understands it. For many years, church membership was normative. Now, that is not the case, which presents an amazing opportunity. People should not be drawn to the church because of our sameness with the world, but because of our strangeness to the world. We believe in a dead Man coming to life after having born the wrath of God for the sins of all who would believe in and call on Him. That's strange! We also live in a manner consistent with our calling as children of God, which to the world is equally as strange. If we see that the church is supposed to be different, we can begin to cling to what makes us distinct - the gospel.
3. To put the impetus against abortion and other issues on human dignity.
The pro-life movement is another example of political alliances that do not necessarily exclude people outside the faith. The reason the church should stand against abortion isn't because it's the position of the Republican party, but because we are made in the image of God. Every time an abortionist legally kills another child, the image of God is defaced. That said, we must carry the underlying principle into other arenas as well, such as in how we treat immigrants, racial equality, and so forth.
4. To better articulate the need for and parameters of religious liberty and freedom of conscience.
As we become more and more strange to the culture, attacks on religious liberty will grow more frequent and intense. We must strongly defend religious liberty for all people, not just those who believe what we believe. The ability of the state to prohibit one Hindu from practicing his faith is the ability to prevent all Christians from practicing theirs. As such, we must be able to refuse to do those things which Scripture clearly teaches against. We must stop using Scripture to justify the platform of either political party when Scripture leaves the issue open to conscience and pragmatics. Dr. Moore's focus on religious liberty across all areas of the ethical pillars he discussed is superb.
5. To develop a more holistic theology of the family in a culture that is constantly redefining it.
It is clear that culture is trying to redefine family. Dr. Moore provides a holistic theology of the family as part of the mystery of the Kingdom of God that the church must adhere to. While this includes a stand against same-sex marriage, it also includes a stand against adultery and domestic abuse, as well as an active participation in adoption, foster care, and the like.
6. To evaluate the effectiveness of how we engage our culture.
Too often, we mimic the world in how we engage, including the temper tantrums that we think only demonstrate our passion for an issue. Dr. Moore demonstrates from Scripture that our engagement is to be kind and gentle. This is not a matter of weakness, but a matter of strength. We will not persuade others to Christ by yelling at them or degrading them because of their beliefs right now. Instead of talking about them, we need to talk to them. We cannot be merely civil - we must be kind.
7. To grow.
I have grown as a result of reading this book. I left convicted that often times my response to the corporate, cultural sin that we see today has been angry. Instead of loving others and being kind, I've often begun to despise them because of their beliefs. This is not appropriate. I have been refreshed by reading a theologically and biblically solid argument in favor of consistent, biblical, missional, Christian behavior and cultural engagement. I think you will grow too.
A Word of Caution
I can only give the book four out of five stars because Dr. Moore limited his audience somewhat by presenting very complex arguments utilizing a very advanced vocabulary. I have degrees in both theology and law, but I still had to look up some words. I also found myself having to go back and re-read several pages or even an entire chapter in order to feel comfortable that I comprehended the argument. As such, this is far from light reading. If you're up for the challenge, go read this book!
Dr. Russell Moore is the President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.
I follow Christ. I have a beautiful wife Megan and three wonderful children, Harrisen, Rebekah, and Carter. I am a candidate for a Ph.D. in ethics from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, have an M.Div. from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and a JD from the University of Arkansas, am licensed to practice law in several state and federal courts, and live in Rogers, Arkansas. I write a blog and produce a podcast. And I do it all that others may know Christ.