Contract or Covenant

The issue of Marriage in America is still a major issue that this country is going to have to confront and resolve in the days ahead. I am sad to say that some of the confusion regarding the issue of marriage has been contributed to by the delinquency of the church regarding this matter. In many cases, the church is as "clueless" if you will, about the sanctity and sacredness of marriage as the world. A lot of this has to do with our failure as believers in Christ to distinguish between marriage as a Contract or Covenant.

Most people, including the church, view marriage more as a Civil Contract rather than a Sacred Covenant. This is where a major part of the problem is. The issue plaguing our nation isn't simply is it "okay" for people of the same sex to get married. The deeper issue is what is the definition of marriage? If marriage is properly defined, the question of whether or not the homosexual community should participate in marriage takes care of itself. For this reason we need to make the definitional distinction between Marriage as a Contract and Marriage as a Covenant.

Marriage as a Contract can be defined as a bilateral agreement that is voluntarily formed, maintained and dissolved by two individuals. The basis of the Contractual perspective of marriage is rooted in Civil Law. According to this view, the state is charged with overseeing the institution of marriage and has authority to grant both marriage licenses and certificates of divorce. This is where our society has veered off as it relates to the misunderstanding of marriage, for which the church, unknowingly, has said amen. Marriage is not an institution that is derived by the Government. Marriage is an institution that is Ordained by God. However, if your prevailing viewpoint is that of Marriage as a Contractual, Civil Agreement, then yes, it would stand to reason that the question would be raised, why can't homosexuals get married? But what must first be established is that Marriage, according to the Will and Word of God, is not an institution for which the state has primary oversight and authority. This is why President Obama, when he was yet a U.S. Senator, was on the right track when he talked about "civil unions" for those who wanted some type of contractual agreement that could be recognized by the states, that would give individuals who participated in homosexual partnerships certain rights given the tenure of their relationship. This would've maintained the distinction between homosexual unions and the Sanctity of Marriage. Unfortunately, our President didn't maintain this particular perspective.

Marriage as a Covenant can be defined as a sacred bond between a man and a woman instituted by and publicly entered into before God. The key to the Covenant perspective is that marriage isn't just an agreement between two consenting parties, it's an agreement in Covenant with God. This is what's missing in at least, say, 50% of our marriages today (the current divorce rate), the God Factor. Once you factor God into the Covenantal Marriage agreement, then the question is raised, does God condone the marriage of homosexual partners? The answer unequivocally is No! Therefore, homosexual partnerships shouldn't be allowed to participate in the Covenant of Marriage. That's why what America has done regarding the marriage question is so dangerous, because we've infringed and trespassed on the Sacred and Holy territory of God. Marriage is of God, not of man. And now that we (as a nation) have legalized the perversion of this sacred institution, we will have to answer to Him from whom marriage was ordained and derived. I believe this is a judgment that we could have avoided, if we had simply identified the difference between marriage as a Contract or Covenant.