Can nups follow pre-nups?
Pr. Walter Snyder has been faithfully answering questions regarding the Faith and the Christian life in a newspaper column and now a blog for years.
I have to disagree, though, with his answer to a question about pre-nuptual agreements.
When a couple marries, they promise to remain in that relationship and to be faithful to one another until death. There is no "escape clause." "If" and "unless" are equally absent from the vows.
It's generally accepted among traditional Lutherans (or at least so I was taught in the LC-MS institutions I attended; the ELCA seminary wasn't really concerned about such matters) that a valid marriage involves the intention of people involved to actually keep the vows they take; that, for example, a couple which marries in order to afford some economic or social advantage to one or the other parties and then divorce do not contract a valid marriage (pastors and others, if I am wrong here, please tell me; I am, after all, a graduate of an ELCA seminary, where the sanctity of Christian marriage was not nearly as overwhelming a concern as the progress of the Sandanistas in bringing about the Kingdom of God in Nicaragua).
Now, a pre-nup is an agreement between the parties which (obviously) contemplates, at least theoretically, one or both of them not keeping their vows. Thus I, personally, am inclined to disagree with Pr. Snyder's inclination to see pre-nups as an adiaphoron, and to at least wonder whether a couple who marry after signing a pre-nuptual agreement- who, in effect, approach the altar with their fingers crossed, having made provision for one or both not to keep their vows should they be so inclined at some point in the future- are truly married in the eyes of God at all.
Pastors and laypeople alike, what do you think? Are pre-nups compatible with the vows they preceed? Does the existence of a pre-nup, in itself, actually negate a marriage?
I have to disagree, though, with his answer to a question about pre-nuptual agreements.
When a couple marries, they promise to remain in that relationship and to be faithful to one another until death. There is no "escape clause." "If" and "unless" are equally absent from the vows.
It's generally accepted among traditional Lutherans (or at least so I was taught in the LC-MS institutions I attended; the ELCA seminary wasn't really concerned about such matters) that a valid marriage involves the intention of people involved to actually keep the vows they take; that, for example, a couple which marries in order to afford some economic or social advantage to one or the other parties and then divorce do not contract a valid marriage (pastors and others, if I am wrong here, please tell me; I am, after all, a graduate of an ELCA seminary, where the sanctity of Christian marriage was not nearly as overwhelming a concern as the progress of the Sandanistas in bringing about the Kingdom of God in Nicaragua).
Now, a pre-nup is an agreement between the parties which (obviously) contemplates, at least theoretically, one or both of them not keeping their vows. Thus I, personally, am inclined to disagree with Pr. Snyder's inclination to see pre-nups as an adiaphoron, and to at least wonder whether a couple who marry after signing a pre-nuptual agreement- who, in effect, approach the altar with their fingers crossed, having made provision for one or both not to keep their vows should they be so inclined at some point in the future- are truly married in the eyes of God at all.
Pastors and laypeople alike, what do you think? Are pre-nups compatible with the vows they preceed? Does the existence of a pre-nup, in itself, actually negate a marriage?
Comments
While just speaking off the top of my head here...
First off, I don't think such agreements are a good idea. I think they raise questions of trust/mistrust which can have a detrimental effect on a relationship. OTOH, some might argue they increase trust by taking the issue of money "off the table".
Second, I must agree with Rev. Snyder that there is no CLEAR scriptural prohibition here. However, not all adiaphora are created equal. Just because we are free to do something doesn't make it a good idea.
And I am willing to be convinced, but I find it hard to argue that making a promise is negated by providing a provision for when and if we break such a promise. I am struggling to think of a parallel example but coming up empty here.
What about the implications for Christ's marriage to His bride, the Church? There are certainly no "if's" or "maybe's" about the Gospel. OTOH, we do believe people can lose faith, thus "divorcing" themselves from God, and losing the benefits of the "marriage". How does this relationship (the Divine Marriage) help us understand everyday human marriage? Still mulling this one over.
I guess I'd like to hear more on this before I would answer SO definitively. Maybe I can say, I would "like to be convinced" that you are right, Bob.
Prenuptial agreements for Christian couples shouldn't be “divorce insurance” per se. While this may be a part of the total package, they also help when the laws of the state run contrary to the wishes of both of the parties. For example, community property states can force a surviving spouse to assume assets that the couple agrees should remain with one family or the other.
They also can be used in conjunction with wills, powers of attorney for health care, and other legal documents to project children, whether born in a marriage for which an agreement was written or products of a previous marriage.
If a couple appears to want a pre-nup either to have mutual clubs to hold over each other or as a carefully crafted license to shirk the obligations of matrimony, I’m thoroughly opposed. However, I do think that they can be used creatively by committed believers to benefit each other and the marriage itself.
To use a specific example, my father remarried at the age of 73. Both he and his wife had accumulated financial assets and other possessions that they wanted to make sure would pass on to their children without fear of state law hindering their desires. While married, they lived as “us,” with joint accounts, investments, purchases, and the like. However, they also clearly defined what they were—at least for a time, holding back in order to protect inheritance. Neither attempted to deny benefits from the other; neither entered the agreement with the possibility of divorce as a motive. I maintain that, when undertaken with the proper motives, even an agreement between younger people who’ve never married can be done in a God-pleasing manner.
Regarding the previous comment from preacherboy relating human marriage to that of Christ with His Bride, I think that we might consider prenuptials in the light of the Gospel: Christ makes guarantees and pledges, establishes conditions, and seals the agreement with His own death. The conditional statements of Old and New Testaments, including the mini-epistles to the Seven Churches in Revelation come to mind. For example, Rev 2:10 says, “Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.” (ESV)
I have to admit that I don't like them, either (in case you haven't guessed!). Too many couples- even church members- who would never actually say this out loud get married with the attitude, "Well, if it doesn't work out, we can always get divorced!"