Recently I was talking to someone and they lamented that all their friends were now married, getting married or in de facto relationships.  In the course of the conversation I wanted to say, “you mean shacking up”, as the people being talked about had only been together for a short time.

Soon after I read about the guy on Google Street View who wanted to make a better second proposal to his wife.  Please note his words concerning this on http://www.marrymeleslie.com

Let’s start at the beginning. Some time ago, I met a wonderful girl named Leslie. We fell in love, eventually moved in together, and have been building a life with each other ever since. Things were great! As a result, I decided to do the obvious thing: I proposed (“Proposal 1.0”). And within moments, she said YES!

There is this idea that the natural course of relationships is to have what the British call a “common law wife”, Aussies call a de facto, Americans call moving in together.  I am aware of a study in Britain that this has been the major trend of relationships for centuries so I am not condemning this just wanting to get the facts out.

So what do these things mean?  Within Victoria, where I live, I was interested to note the law states that the following are considered relevant in deciding if a domestic relationship exists:

(a) the duration of the relationship;

(b) the nature and extent of common residence;

(c) whether or not a sexual relationship exists;

(d) the degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support, between the parties;

(e) the ownership, use and acquisition of property;

(f) the degree of mutual commitment to a shared life;

(g) the care and support of children;

(h) the reputation and public aspects of the relationship.

In other words “shacking up” may or may not mean you are now married in the sight of the law.  It means you are literally together but if there are no kids, no financial sharing, no joint property and not a lot of commitment then what becomes of the reputation and public aspects of the relationship?

Put this next to Hosea who was an object lesson for Israel.  Hosea was commanded to marry a prostitute to remind Israel of its unfaithfulness.  The description above “no kids, no joint property and not a lot of commitment” sounds like Israel.    The financial sharing may have been mutual but I suspect in reality there was little of this really going on.  God gave but the Israelistes ignored where their blessings came from.  Hosea ends up having kids with Gomer, and the kids themselves are walking descriptions of what God thinks of Israel.

God’s heart is for faithfulness.  Not relatonships that have no mutual commitment to a shared life.  God shared his life most clearly with us in sending His son Jesus Christ to redeem us and sending the Spirit to empower us.  God ha lived with us and wants us to be in relationship with him.

So what sort of relationship are you having with God?

Advertisements