thoughts of marriage and responsibility

[PoppySead]

I agree for different reasons. Ever since the state has aligned itself with the Christian church there has been nothing but chaos. Let's just allow the church to be what it really is, powerless unless you willingly forgo your life for it. That way the rest of us can live without it's influence humping our leg.

[NoCapo]

Originally Posted by Goodpasture

I believe the mass of American Christianity, market-driven, sophisticated, and anything but foolish, has become an anemic and whining political and cultural entity that does little more than amass prestige, power, and money. It is nothing like a holy nation. It is nothing like the Kingdom of God. But it can be and one of the first steps is to remove its self from the narcotic embrace of The State.

You are not alone in thinking this. I had an uncle who attended a church like this. They refused to incorporate, as they believed that being a 501c3 organization or indeed any sort of corporate entity at all would give the government control over them.

The difficulty is that for American Christianity, making this leap involves some very radical changes. You can no longer have corporately owned facilities, so you must become something akin to a house church. You cannot have a career pastor, so you must be led strictly by unpaid pastors or lay ministers. Tithes are no longer tax deductible, and there would be strict personal legal liability for any monies donated or collected. In addition, ministers would potentially no longer be shielded from discriminatory practices, since there would be no associated ministry or religious organization. This sort of change would demolish most congregations greater than 30 people or so, and change churches into sort of loosely affiliated cell groups.

Now you may feel theologically that none of these changes are problematic. I think many, maybe even most Christians would object to changing their faith and worship so radically.

The other problem problem that will keep many American Christians from embracing this sort of structure is that, quite frankly, it is scary. When church becomes quasi-clandestine cells in a loose network, driven by a theological and political ideology that fears secular governance and calls for its opposition, you are only a stones throw away from Hezbollah, the Christian Identity movement, or the Branch Davidians...

And sure enough, my uncle's "home church" generally wore camo fatigues to meetings, and regularly held "services" at the gun range where they practiced using their AR15s, SKSs, 50 cal. and various full auto weapons (for the class IIIs) to defend themselves against the inevitable black helicopters and atheist stormtroopers. And in between they tried to plan how they might move to a sparsely populated area in the hills of TN and secede from then union, declaring a Constitutional Theocracy...

I'm not saying all home churches or groups who are fundamentally opposed to 501c3 status go this route, but when you allow fear and paranoia to dictate your religious practices for you, this is where it can lead. One has only to look at history to see that there is a danger here...

-NoCapo

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Albert_The_Crocodile

Well, yes and no. As an ordained minister, I can technically perform a religious ceremony without a state marriage license, but I have never done so and probably never will. First of all, the marriage would be ceremonial only, with no legal recognition whatsoever, and the two parties would never have any of the rights and privileges associated with a legal union. And second of all, by performing a marriage ceremony without a license, I am opening myself up to potential criminal penalties (up to and including jail time), and risking the loss of my credentials as a minister. I am also exposing myself to a potential lawsuit later on by the people I have married if they should ever attempt to avail themselves of the benefits of a legal marriage.

So for those reasons, while it is technically possible, in practice it can prove very difficult to find an officiant who would actually agree to perform the ceremony.

You are saying pretty much what I did, which is the marriage would be ceremonial, and would lack legal recognition, and the couple could not enjoy any of the rights and privileges the state gives to married couples.

But it seems that if a fundamentalist pastor wanted to make some sort of misguided point that marriage is not the government's business, he could have the couple sign a waiver stating that they understand the union is not state approved and they will not have any of the legal benefits of marriage, that it is strictly ceremonial. And he could then perform the ceremony. The agreement would prove full disclosure.

Of course the other practical problem is that in a lot of people's eyes that couple would not be "truly" married and then he'd be open to charges of encouraging people to live "in sin" and have children "out of wedlock".

And then there's the practical problem that people could go to other churches for "marriage with legal benefits" and that would put him at a recruitment disadvantage.

Even fundamentalists, I think, recognize that there are limits to being right. Or as the old saying goes, "would you rather be right, or happy?"