Around the world, and through history, governments have misunderstood and abused marriage in many other ways, and we would do well to broaden our perspective as we consider the proper relationship between church and state on the subject of marriage.

Chapter 59 of the Presbyterian Church in America’s (PCA) Directory of Worship opens this way:

Marriage is a divine institution though not a sacrament, nor peculiar to the Church of Christ. It is proper that every commonwealth, for the good of society, make laws to regulate marriage, which all citizens are bound to obey insofar as they do not transgress the laws of God (Acts 5:29).

This brief section captures some of the difficulties we face when trying to understand what marriage is and who has authority over it.  On one hand, it is a “divine institution,” and thus pertains to the Church of Christ.  But it is simultaneously not “peculiar” to the church, and governments are permitted to “regulate marriage.” And yet they should not “transgress the laws of God,” at least if obedience is the goal.

If you ask Reformed Christians in the United States today to identify the most important way that governments “transgress the laws of God” in the area of marriage, the response you’ll likely hear is “same-sex marriage.”  This is indeed a serious violation of God’s law, and it has rightly captured our attention – as seen, for example, in the several overtures to the PCA’s General Assembly to give BCO 59 full constitutional authority.

But this response reveals our tendency toward parochialism – in fact, the “church” and the “state” are much bigger than our denominations and our state and national governments.  Around the world, and through history, governments have misunderstood and abused marriage in many other ways, and we would do well to broaden our perspective as we consider the proper relationship between church and state on the subject of marriage.

Government restrictions on marriage
Thankfully, it is relatively rare in our circles to find ourselves in the position where government restrictions prevent us from obtaining a marriage that otherwise the church would approve.  Most government restrictions on marriage in the United States today are similar to those found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, such as prohibitions against polyamory (24-1), marriage without consent (24-3), and marriage between close relations (24-4).[1]

But looking beyond our time and place quickly reveals many examples of civil governments that have prohibited or restricted marriage on other grounds.  I’ll briefly note four:

• Roman law in the early church
• Protestant marriages in Franco’s Spain
• Interracial marriage in the United States
• Those of Haitian ancestry in the Dominican Republic

Third-century Roman Empire
The problem of government restrictions on marriage goes at least as far back as the third century, when Roman law prohibited marriage between high-born women and lower-class men.  In the upper classes, more women than men were converting to Christianity, which meant that many Christian women, seeking to be equally yoked in the faith, sought relationships with men of lower social status.

Leaders of the church disagreed over how to respond.  To the consternation of Hippolytus, his rival Calixtus permitted intimate relationships of couples in this situation – he apparently considered them “married” despite the lack of government approval.[2]

Francoist Spain in the mid-20th century
The inauguration of Franco’s regime in the late 1930s brought major changes to marriage in Spain.  Catholics were required to marry in the church, and to enforce compliance, civil marriages were tightly controlled.  Protestants seeking to marry were subjected to a difficult, complex, and often lengthy process of proving themselves non-Catholic, which incidentally further exposed them to persecution in the Catholic society.  This wasn’t lost on contemporaries like Gordon Clark, who wrote:

When Dictator Franco and the Roman church attempt to force American military and civilian personnel to beg permission of a Roman bishop in order to marry one another, even a full-fledged secularist develops an interest in the relation of church to state.[3]

Interracial marriage in the United States
Coming closer to home, it may be surprising to younger generations that as recently as 51 years ago, many US states prohibited interracial marriages.  Anti-miscegenation laws were common throughout the nation in the 18th century, both North and South, and in 1967 they were still in effect in 17 states, including West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware.[4]

Whites were thus prevented from marrying blacks in these states, and sometimes from marrying those of other races as well.  Thus even if a minister in these areas wished to officiate such a wedding, it would not receive official recognition from the government.

Those of Haitian ancestry in the Dominican Republic
In light of these historical examples, it’s tempting to consider the possibility that we live in a more enlightened age and that such restrictions would never be imposed again.  But next we turn to the situation of 200,000 people born in the Dominican Republic.  In 2013, they had their citizenship revoked because they are of Haitian ancestry and were born after 1929.  Since then, only those who undertake a lengthy and expensive legal process can regain legal standing in Dominican society, while the rest are prevented from obtaining civil marriage.

Consider the very real case of a man and woman of Haitian descent who have been co-habitating for several years and have a child.  If the man and woman convert to Christianity, wish to be married, and seek to join the church, must they first complete the multi-year process of saving money and undergoing legal proceedings in order to obtain a civil marriage?  Local churches have often refused membership to such couples, considering them adulterers, until civil marriage can be obtained.[5]

Conclusion

These are just a few of the ways that magistrates have improperly regulated marriage.  Charles Hodge provides several more examples in his Systematic Theology, and writes:

The legitimate power of the state in all these matters is limited by the revealed will of God.  It can make nothing an impediment to marriage which the Scriptures do not declare to be a bar to that union.[6]

In light of today’s controversies on marriage in the United States, the proposed amendment to the PCA’s constitution (BCO 59), and our attempts to both speak the truth and act justly, we would do well to consider not only our current circumstances, but other related situations in history and around the world that have required great wisdom.

Having this context in place, a forthcoming article will focus more closely on BCO 59 itself, its consistency with the Westminster Standards, and its possible application to situations like those mentioned here.

Nathaniel Sheetz is a member of the Presbyterian Church in America and serves as a ruling elder at Gospel Fellowship PCA in Valencia, Penn.

[1] Even here, there are exceptions.  Many states prohibit marriage between first cousins, even though this is not one of the relations explicitly mentioned as incestuous in Scripture (cf. Leviticus 18).  And some states restrict marriages on the basis of health – in Pennsylvania, for example, a valid marriage license application requires a statement that neither party to the marriage has a transmissible disease (though enforcement is surely low).

[2] Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, 9.7.  Cf. Christianity Stack Exchange, Did the early church accept lifelong, faithful concubinage?, accessed 2018-05-03.

[3] The Southern Presbyterian Journal,  Volume 13, Number 48, “The Civil Magistrate”

[4] Wikipedia, “Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States”,accessed 2018-05-03.

[5] Sadly, I’ve personally seen cases similar to this, and have had numerous conversations on this topic with Dominican pastors seeking to be faithful to the scriptures.

[6] Part III, Chapter XIX, §11, “Marriage as a Civil Institution.”