At the end of the day, its not that I am not going to obey Caesar. I will. I will pray for him, respect him, and serve him as pleasing God, not men. As I noted in another post above, we are called even to humbly serve unjust masters. It is the nature and extent of his authority that I am curious about. I’d like to have it clear in my mind when my earthly masters are being unjust is all. Surely you agree that God did not write the state a blank check. The state obviously overreaches. What are the boundary lines? It seems to me that, providentially, we are in a historical moment where such questions are very pertinent.

Blessings,

Matt

My comments thus come across to some thus conditioned as “adolesent and sophomoric.” Nevertheless, dream as I may, once and a while it is nice to dream. Sheesh, its’ just plain nice to think.

Granted, that was pretty snarky. Sorry. I like to think and dream, too.

But my point is that in something like Mark 11 we seem to see something being said about authority and submission that applies to all times and places. It is an interesting question whether Caesar could tax the Jews, etc. and so on and so forth. But that doesn’t seem to be what Jesus is interested in. He seems more interested in the fact that Caesar is God’s left hand, despite all sorts of other concerns, and that .

Personally, I really don’t think we 21st century Americans grasp well what the Bible seems to convey about things like authority, submission and obedience. We American-Christians seems to think more like Americans than Christians (I heard that, CVD). We question and speculate more than we submit and obey. We like authority when we agree with it or it goes our way. I know CVD has a fear of heights, but obedience is better than sacrifice, and obedience is what actually won our salvation.

Yours in true liberty,

Matt

With that said, I’m not sure that exegetically I can derive from scripture a precise form of government that is biblically mandated or a precise agenda for government that would allow me to say, biblically, that government has exceeded its proper, ordained role. The Gen. 4, 9, and NT passages are quite sparse and, I think, can’t be pushed to establish a full biblically prescribed political science. I see little in scripture that mandates the practicalities of government’s limits. I do think you can make a case for protection of private property and free markets from scripture, and so cast doubt upon the validity of a full throated socialism, as a professor at WSC does. But apart from that, I make the case for limited government on common grace, political and economic grounds rather than scriptural grounds. Getting to cases, I think the case for state licensing of marriage is a rather strong pragmatic case in today’s world. While the welfare state largely created the inner city breakdown of families, the solution it seems to me is at this point not withdrawal of the state from regulating these affairs. And the licensing of marriage does not harm and some good. If I were persuaded on exegetical grounds that the state exceeds its God-given authority in licensing marriage, I would agree with you.

I appreciate your reply. Let me approach things this way: as I read scripture I find that the state is a post-fall, common grace institution whose existence presupposes violent agression (crime) (e.g. Gen. 4:14-15; 9:6). It was put into place by God with the authority to punish criminals (the sword), and by so doing promote just behavior (Rom. 13:3-4). Corresponding to this it would then have authority to judge in disputes between parties in a contract where a breach of contract is claimed to have been committed (a breach which would defraud one of the parties of his personal property). Theft too is unjust aggression.

What biblical conclusions can we draw thus far?

1. Marriage and the state have not always co-existed. In principle then marriage can and did exist apart from the sanction of the state.

2. The state’s function is remedial, retaliatory, and punitive by charter. The biblical charter for the state is even more limited than our Constitution’s (which, by the way, does not grant authority to the state to regulate marriage either).

3. Anyone who would ascribe to the state the right to tell me who I can marry and/or how many children I can have would have a very difficult time exegetically supporting such a position, even harder than arguing that the state has the God-given authority to make cars.

By my understanding then I would agree with you that the state can and should play a role with regard to family affairs insofar as a crime were being committed (crime = unjust aggression against person or property, ala the biblical passages noted above). Saying that it must or should be involved at the outset of a marriage is simply saying more than the text of scripture.

Lastly, I recognize that the Lord has allowed the state to become a Beast, to transgress its boundaries and assume to itself godlike power and authority, and that as a Christian I am to submit even to unjust magistrates (save for when I must obey God rather than men). So that is not an issue here. The discussion is purely theorhetical, logical, historical, and exegetical. I am not advocating rebellion…I am just taking note of how large the Beast has grown.

Your points on the practical necessity of state intervention into these matters are noted, but again, I respectfully disagree. I would simply rejoin that much of the blame for the state of the family in the inner cities can be laid at the feet of government intervention (much like the current financial crisis). Less intervention by the state, not more, would be a better starting point when seeking to address the breakdown of inner city families.

I realize that we live in the era of the nanny state and so find it difficult to imagine life without Big Brother involved in everything we do. I also recognize that many Christians indulge a de facto messianc view of the state, looking to it as the all-powerful manager of human affairs, the benelovent provider of all solutions to social, economic, familial, national, and cultural woes. My comments thus come across to some thus conditioned as “adolesent and sophomoric.” Nevertheless, dream as I may, once and a while it is nice to dream. Sheesh, its’ just plain nice to think.

But before the modern nation-state someone in creational authority had to tell a man and a woman they were married. The point is that there are all sorts of ways across time and place to do this. I happen to live in a time and place where it’s the state. Romantically pining for another time and place to be patched onto mine, while perhaps interesting, finally doesn’t solve anything in the real world. I still need to know who says I’m my wife’s husband and she’s my wife in 21st century America. (If the state makes a few bucks, I don’t care.)

I have heard progressives argue the same thing you basically are; I have a distant relative who pastors in a liberal denomination that blesses same-sex unions. They also want marriage privatized. The common fear you both seem to have is that the state will make a decision you don’t like (Adam and Steve may marry, or they mayn’t). And instead of having to live with something you don’t like the idea is to circumvent, even undermine, ordained authority. I fail to see how this is any different from my daughter suggesting a decision I have made she doesn’t like means I have overstepped my parental bounds, pointing to another dad down the street who decided otherwise for his kids. Yes, I am suggesting what you are arguing is pretty adolescent and sophomoric.

Zrim, the fact that we are called to obey civil magistrates does not in any way affirm that all the authority they have assumed is by God-given charter. It doesn’t mean that whatever they do and command under the sun is justly their to do and command. It might be true that God allows them to assume power not originally assigned by Him, but that again is not eqivalent with charter. What’s more, I cannot understand why you are ready to agree with me on state instrusion into the family sphere when it comes to children, but not to spouses.

CVanDyke, you’re argument has the appearance of self-evident truth only because of our historical myopia. It simply is not true that marriage has always been regulated by the state, nor is it true that the state has always been the only means by which property rights were managed, health and welfare maintained, and contracts (a special instance of which would be the contract of marriage) enforced. The west wasn’t as wild as your state sponsored public school history text would have us believe.

Before, and even after the rise of the modern nation-state, many cultures and societies managed themselves quite well in terms of marriage and many other aspects of life, apart from state interference and micromanaging, without falling into anarchy (if by anarchy is meant chaos).

You both might find it interesting to learn that for the better part of Western history marriage contracts were defined and regulated by common law, and that state issued marriage licenses did not appear in England until the fourteenth century. Why did they appear then? Well, why else? Aggrandisement, power-lust, and, as always, revenue.

State issued marriage licenses in the US are also a relatively recent development. It seems that some beaurocrat got the idea that marriages should fall under the auspices of the Dept. of Health. Genuis. Nice job they’ve done with it since then…

Law is needed, CVD, but not necessarily state law or legislated law. Common law worked quite well for many, many peoples for many, many centuries.

Incredible claim? That the state issues marriage licenses?

If you’re right then I don’t know how my own marriage is valid (which I’d prefer, and not just for tax purposes). My wife’s father married us, but that was because the state vested its power in him as a pastor to do so, not because he was her father. How is that an incredible example?

It seems to me your suggestion, which I have heard plenty of times before, is a creative way to circumvent hard decisions. But if we don’t have our licenses signed by the state, by whom are they signed? Can’t be the church, since marriage isn’t a redemptive ordinance. Or perhaps we need those “pieces of paper”? Maybe shacked-up fornicators are right, maybe all we need is to be “married in our hearts” because we say we are? Maybe the legitimacy of God’s left hand only counts when we agree with the decisions?

But if Jesus said to render unto (that maniac who thought he was deity and trampled the individual rights of God’s people) Caesar his due, and if Paul says that our authorities (who make all sorts of mistakes, up to and including our persecution) were given us for our good, does it really follow that there is anyone else who finally marries us?