A problem⤒🔗

It is becoming increasingly common for young people to live together without being married. The statistics make it clear that the number of marriages in the Europe is decreasing. This will not be the result of the fact that people no longer need one another or no longer seek one another as life partners. It will rather be due to the fact that it is no longer necessary to marry officially.

This is discussed in all kinds of circles. Recently there was an article in the magazine for Reformed office-bearers, written by the rector of the Seminary in Driebergen (now appointed as professor in Leiden), Dr. F.O. van Gennep (1926-1990). He discussed the phenomenon under the title, “Is there room for shacking up in the house?” His reply was that people do not have to have insurmountable objections to the cohabitation of two people. It is rather about who is going to live with whom. In other words: whether it is done out of sincere affection and with the desire to really serve each other.

This raises the question of the continuation of marriage in our society. Marriage namely derives its strength from the fact that it is up until now a legally recognized arrangement that has general validity. There is no other relationship between two people in our society that has the same legal force. One can live in an arrangement of common law. Then one does not have the same status before the law as when one is married. It is difficult to imagine that there would be two possible arrangements: one for people who are set on marriage; and another arrangement for those who no longer want marriage. After all, what is the legal basis for being married? The voluntary promise of two people to each other, sealed with a signature on the marriage certificate, which is made at the town hall in the presence of witnesses. Only then do wedded people have the status of married people. Then they can appeal to the government that they are married.

This naturally involves: the name of the children born from the marriage; the regulation of the joint ownership, however limited in scope; inheritance issues; and the right and the obligation to raise children. I mention just a few things.

The Church Has to Deal with It←⤒🔗

The issue of cohabitation raises the question of whether, in our society, marriage will be the only legally recognized form for bringing two people together. Whoever recognizes cohabitation as a legitimate and legal alternative dissolves marriage as an institution.

The church also has to deal with this matter, in varying ways. In the first place by asking itself what office-bearers will have to say to young unmarried people who are living together. Or should they perhaps say nothing about it? Should they keep silent? That would be equivalent to approving the cohabitation of unmarried people. Can the church accept the fact that marriage is avoided, yes, even opposed, and that couples still behave as if they are married? In other words, should the church not take a stand for marriage as an institution of God?

This is a matter that needs to be addressed in catechesis and preaching. No less does it affect church discipline. After all, in the case of adultery or fornication, the purity of marriage is at stake. According to what we read in the Scriptures about the purity and sanctity of marriage, the church identifies adultery and fornication as sin. It has to admonish those who are guilty of it. When people persevere in this evil, they will have to be treated according to the steps of church discipline.

There is also another way in which the church may have to deal with the issue of cohabitation. Suppose two young people have lived together for quite some time and then decide to get married. Is the consistory then obliged to accept any potential application for ecclesiastical confirmation of this marriage? Or should the consistory of the church refuse such a request?

Background←⤒🔗

We first want to pay some attention to the background of this phenomenon. It is evident that we live in a spiritual climate that can be characterized as anti‑institutional. By that we mean that people no longer like to be committed. Anything that resembles an institution that entails obligations is rejected. They do not want to commit themselves. They do not want to have any obligations. They want to be free. The latter is really a part of it. After all, it is not just about having any obligations. People consider obligations difficult, unnecessary, and superfluous. Those who are truly free cannot be made to feel obligated to do anything. Obligations compete with feeling truly free. The anti‑institutional spirit of our time is the reverse of the modern idea of ​​freedom.

A few years ago, cohabitation was still spoken of in the sense of an experiment. People wanted to give it a try. If it did not work, then one could separate. The experiment was without obligation. It appears to me that this motive is far less common nowadays. If you lend a listening ear, you will usually hear the following as an argument for not getting married: we do not want to be bound.

We need to dig somewhat deeper. The dissolution of the marriage concept needs to be seen in an even broader context. It is part of the great revolution that is being preached. Often marriage is seen as a sign of the current social order. Many are opposed to this. They have no peace with it. Worse, the organization of today’s society is seen as the cause of much evil. Anyone who knows how to change this society will also have a different life and even different people.

This social criticism aims at a total revolution. Letting go of the institution of marriage is part of the great upheaval, which one can safely classify as “revolution.” In the plea for cohabitation and ignoring marriage, I see the signal of the revolution mentioned above.

A Form of Common Law←⤒🔗

The problem we are writing about can be summarized as follows: can we give up on marriage with the Bible in our hand? Is there an alternative to biblical marriage? Dr. van Gennep wrote, “People can regard living together as a new form of marriage.” In all likelihood he implies with this: even those who reject marriage as an institution must still arrive at something like a marriage. Well, cohabitation — without being married, of course—is the new form that one needs when being married disappears. Now we should reflect about this. After all, what is the case? People no longer want marriage as an institution. They want a replacement for it. What does this replacement look like? It is a scenario where the rights are acknowledged, but not the duties that the marriage entails. You can pretend to be married, but you do not have the duty to stay together.

It can also be said differently: this alternative is not at all as new as is suggested. It was also known in the past. At that time it was called “concubinage.” That is the living together of two people who are not legally married, but pretend to be married. In the past concubinage (or: “common law”) was not seen as a marriage. It is a form of pretending. What we are experiencing now is that the already known form of living together is represented as an alternative to marriage. A different name is used, but the actual matter is the same as in the past. At that time cohabitation without being married was rejected; now it is accepted. The matter itself has not changed. Only the name has changed. And with that, the matter seems to be legitimate.

It appears to me that with this infidelity to marriage, we encounter the umpteenth attack on biblical thinking. There is a clear strategy behind this attack. It is the strategy of toppling everything that reminds us of the Christian faith and the Christian life. The diehard remnants of the Christian life need to be removed from society. Then the way is paved for a whole new pattern of life, in which nothing reminds us of God and of the statutes he has given.

Marriage Offers Protection←⤒🔗

It is impossible to recognize both marriage and cohabitation as equal forms. Marriage is characterized by the promise, which a couple seals with their signature. Cohabitation is an expression of a desire to be able to get along together. However, there is no legal or even a moral obligation. People start cohabiting with the idea that if does not work out then they will separate.

With the institution of marriage God wanted to protect people against arbitrariness. He has given them firmness. When you marry you know where you are at. You promise faithfulness to each other. You can be held accountable for this promise. Instead of this steadfastness, purposely desired by God, comes the wish that one will make something of it. If it does not work, it can be tried with someone else.

The church will have to say “No” against this moral development. It is a moral disruption. Every moral disruption carries with it a great danger for people. The blinding nature of sin entails that one does not recognize the danger.

I find it most appalling that people in ecclesiastical circles so easily go along with this new moral of marriage. I can no longer call it “moral.” It is moral destruction. The church will have to warn against this in preaching and in catechesis.

It appears to me that young people who have lived together for a shorter or longer period, and still want to have their marriage confirmed in church, cannot be granted permission to do so. They have shown to despise marriage. They pretended they were already married. Can a consistory then, with an honest conscience, call the congregation together to ask for a blessing from God for the bridal couple, who have already put cohabitation into practice, without having needed God’s blessing in the time of living together?

It can be said in a different way: when the church confirms the marriage of people who have already cohabited as unmarried people, it will cooperate in the undermining of marriage. This gives a bad testimony to the church, and also to the world. The church will get the reputation that it recognizes both the one and the other as a possibility.

It can hurt when a consistory refuses to confirm the marriage of people who have already lived together. I think of the parents of such young people. I also think of the complications that can result from this in a congregation. Nevertheless, a church council will have to follow a clear line in this regard. There may not be the potential of a zigzag course.

Of course, the possibility remains that young people, who have lived together, come to the conclusion that their cohabitation was in conflict with the ordination of God. That must be acknowledged and — in whatever way — be made clear. When the disposition of repentance of violating the ordination of God is there, a marriage can be confirmed ecclesiastically.