Culture Whores

The North Jersey Herald & News recently asked four New Jersey religious leaders for their views on whether it is okay to live together before marriage. Father Lou Scurti, a Roman Catholic priest, said:

The commitment of marriage is not meant to "test the waters" by living together. Living together is only one aspect of what the commitment entails. Knowing each other and preparing to spend a lifetime together is a lifelong experience.

When two people, two lives, from two families come together to marry, it should be after a period of learning about each other’s values, attitudes, habits, strengths and weaknesses, with the intention of longevity, mutual love and a commitment to raise children in a family that is wholesome, spiritual and responsible.

Living with each other before marriage makes it seem like a trial run which has nothing to do with the ongoing commitment that is needed in these areas of mutual trust and fidelity.

Marriage is the biblical standard designed, instituted and ordained by God as the foundation for all families within human society (Gen. 2, 3). Marriage and sexual relations are gifts from God and regulated by God. Since human beings did not establish the institution of marriage and sexual relations, we cannot regulate them but only submit to the Creator in these matters. Hebrews 13:4 informs us to "honor marriage, and guard the sacredness of sexual intimacy between wife and husband because God will judge those who are immoral and those who commit adultery." Marriage authorizes sexual relations, not cohabitation.

The underlying premise behind cohabitation is freedom - freedom to make self-centered choices and live under the pretense of a commitment while maintaining the ease of abandoning the relationship at will. The problem with test-driving is that the law of probability favors a child being conceived through this illicit sexual union. The lack of true commitment in these pseudo-marriages leaves single parents and children at a greater risk to poverty, rejection and abandonment issues, shame, anger and deviant behavior.

Marriage is a passionate commitment of the physical, emotional/mental and spiritual. It is an act of the will, a pledge and a privilege. The basis for marital commitment is unconditional and servanthood love. "Committed love is costly and expensive but it yields the highest returns on the investment at maturity."

From a Muslim perspective cohabitation is not permissible at all. If a person is committed to the person, one has to live up to his responsibilities. It should not just be sex partners, it should be life partners, full commitment or no commitment.

Premarital sex is a no because not only does it affect the people who are not taking it seriously - it’s almost a non-desire to commit to someone or an institution - but it’s also sending a message to the young generation. If the family institution is going to start being diluted in such a way, the coming generation will be diluted even more and that’s not something we want to see happen. ... When we have thoughts of sexual liberation, we have concentrated on the physical and lost sight of the spiritual aspect of the sexual experience.

From Muslim perspective, the reason there are a lot of divorces is because people enter the institution of marriage for the wrong reasons. It lacks the full commitment of sacrifice and complementation between a man and wife and a desire to make it happen with compromises.

Some people are entering with total independence - the idea that the husband is independent of the wife and vice versa and there are two separate entities in household - neither one of which is going by the actual structure that God wants us to live by.

I think, from the perspective of a modern female priest ... there isn’t a problem with people cohabitating or "trying it on for size," so to speak. I think the only difference comes when there are children in the relationship and, also, sometimes in some relationships, people who cohabitate always, even over the long term of five, 10, 15 years, do feel that there is always an out. There may be a lack of stability and commitment without actual marriage or blessing of the relationship.

I don’t believe that cohabitating is living in sin, I think that’s a creation of our culture, to some extent, as well as the church.

If you have to ask the denomination of the Rev. Ronnie Stout-Kopp, you really need to get out more.

I've never actually played it, so I'm not terribly familiar with it. Something about the guy in the greenish vestment tells me he would enjoy waving his staff around and yelling "I cast Dispel Evil!"

Since my last reply I remembered that the Archbishop of Canterbury is or was an "honorary Druid", which is exactly the sort of thing you were talking about. Some dress up and play at being pagans so they can hold ye olde quaint ritual, others dress up and play at being Christians so they can hold ye olde quaint liturgy. And neither can reasonably see any conflict, because they don't really mean any of it.

"And neither can reasonably see any conflict, because they don't really mean any of it."

That's the real point, isn't it?

I recall the C.S. Lewis essay where he mocked those who said that England was returning to paganism. He said that he would view it as a distinct improvement in affairs were this really to happen. I seem to recall that he said that he would actually be heartened were Parliament to open its sessions with the sacrifice of a bullock.

His point was that if pagans show one consistent propensity, it is that they tend to convert to Christianity.

But of course, we aren't dealing with "real" paganism, but rather with a fake "feel-good" pseudo-spirituality which is all "win-win" -- no fear of punishment, no gods or spirits to be propitiated or feared...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.