to not understand Christians who have sex/live together before marriage then marry in church?

[onlytwo]

Posting here because I am genuinely confused and not trying to offend anyone.

I keep seeing couples who describe themselves as Christians who have been living together for years, sometimes with kids, then they get married in church with all the religious vows etc. I thought one of the key Christian teachings is no sex before marriage yet it seems really common that people ignore that part but still have a big church wedding.

AIBU to think it is hypocritical?

You’re absolutely right that the church’s history includes times when it performed marriages for political alliances or conducted weddings when a bride was already pregnant. Those actions often reflected social pressures or human failings rather than faithfulness to biblical teaching. But the church’s mistakes in the past do not change what Scripture teaches about marriage as a lifelong, faithful covenant or about God’s design for sex within that covenant.

I agree that some churches have lost moral authority through hypocrisy and scandal, which is tragic and has understandably undermined trust. But the solution is not to stop teaching what the Bible says about sexual ethics, but to do so with grace, compassion, and integrity.

I also agree that churches should approach people with love and humility, not harsh condemnation. But blessing a relationship means more than affirming love alone; it means supporting couples in aligning their lives with what Scripture teaches about marriage. Extending grace does not mean redefining right and wrong. It means helping people turn toward God’s best for them, no matter their past.

Basically to get back to the original question - churches will marry you regardless of whether you are of the faith of the church or another religion or atheist and it doesn’t matter whether you live together or already have a family.

That’s the reality of today’s world - I don’t see anything wrong with it. Last three weddings we’ve been to were in a church as the couple liked the setting. All were in long term relationships and living together. None have plans to attend church regularly or bring their children up in any religious way

The church's past does not simply include times when they performed these weddings, they've always done them.

The church's loss of moral authority has lead some at least, reflecting, adopting a more humble approach and looking to Jesus rather than dogma to spread his teachings and love. A more WWJD approach. I wholeheartedly welcome this.

Marrying committed couples is not the church redefining right and wrong. It is extending grace and helping people turn toward God’s best for them, no matter their past.

I mean the Soul Survivor incident, John Smyth and the abuse Justin Welby very reluctantly resigned about, and hundreds more incidences past and yet to be found out....
The Church is unbelievably hypocritical about sin and sexual activity

I agree that reflecting on the church’s past failings can and should lead to greater humility and compassion. A “What Would Jesus Do” approach is valuable if it means showing love, forgiveness, and patience. But it’s important to remember that Jesus’ ministry included both radical grace and a clear call to repentance and holy living. He never redefined sin to make it acceptable, but lovingly invited people to turn away from it.

Marrying committed couples can indeed be an act of grace, but it becomes problematic when the church ignores or downplays what Scripture says about the purpose of sex and marriage. Extending grace should not mean blessing relationships that openly reject the moral teachings of the faith. True grace helps people align their lives more closely with God’s design, rather than adjusting God’s standards to fit our preferences.

So while humility and love are essential, they need to be paired with honesty about what Jesus and Scripture teach, otherwise, the church risks offering comfort without truth, which ultimately doesn’t help people grow closer to God.

Stupid not to try before you buy whatever your imaginary friend says 😈

Extending grace should not mean blessing relationships that openly reject the moral teachings of the faith.
At it again! There is no rejection involved in a couple choosing to marry. I'm so sorry for whatever went wrong in your life to give you this self-righteous anger, but it is misplaced. Your compassion towards others is lacking, and that will not serve you well in life. It's also at odds with all Christian teachings and you should reflect on why you feel the need to grasp at some specifics but not others; a counsellor might be useful.

This 🤣🤣

@OP I feel very strongly that it ultimately comes down to how you define 'sexual immorality' or 'fornication', since those are the two terms the Biblical view hinges on.

Conservative religious communities have one opinion on that. More liberal communities have another. Non religious people have others still. None can prove that theirs is the only correct one.

The conclusion I draw from this is that we should all keep our pointy beaks out of what other people do in bed, whether in or outside of marriage, and that we should leave judgement to God, if you believe there is one. (I don't). As long as both parties are consenting, of an age to consent and in possession of the capacity to consent, all is well.

I appreciate your concern, but I assure you I am not speaking from anger or bitterness. My aim is not to condemn anyone, but to have an honest discussion about how Christian teachings on marriage and sexual ethics are understood and lived out today.

Pointing out where modern practices diverge from what Scripture teaches is not self-righteousness; it’s engaging seriously with faith and what it means to follow it with integrity. Compassion does not mean avoiding hard truths or pretending there are no moral standards; it means caring enough about others to speak honestly, even when it’s uncomfortable.

I welcome reflection and open dialogue, but dismissing concerns as anger or suggesting counselling simply because someone disagrees is not a constructive way to have this conversation.

I agree that how we define terms like “sexual immorality” and “fornication” is central to this discussion, and I acknowledge there are different interpretations among Christians and across cultures. But from a Christian perspective, the authority for defining those terms does not come from what is popular or culturally accepted, but from what Scripture teaches and how the church has historically understood it.

You’re right that we cannot force our beliefs on others, and I agree that non consensual or exploitative relationships are absolutely wrong. But for those who claim to follow the Christian faith, it’s not just a private matter of preference. It is about aligning their lives with what they profess to believe. Asking whether Christians are living according to what the Bible teaches is not about policing others’ bedrooms, but about whether there is integrity between faith and practice.

Of course, final judgment belongs to God. But having honest conversations about what faith teaches and how we live it out is not the same as condemning others — it’s part of being serious about what it means to follow that faith.

High moral standards can be had by anyone regardless of whether follow a religion.

Nothing at all wrong in sex before marriage - a big risk in not doing so.

@onlytwo , are you using an AI to help generate your responses?

@OP but then your entire point hinges on how you define 'Christians'. You clearly think that whatever you take Christianity to mean is correct, and therefore any interpretation that is more liberal and views the Bible in a different way is wrong. However, you have no proof that your version's interpretation of what is in the Bible is the correct one. So we're back to not judging, and leaving judgement to your God. I suggest you do so, and pray about the passage in the Bible that tells us not to judge, lest you be judged. Your passion for judgement is not very Christian.

My question is specifically about behaviours like premarital sex which are directly addressed in religious texts

Except they aren't.

Was thinking the same - the style gives it away

Agreed.

The books in the bible were written thousands of years ago, by men, often a long time after the event they were describing, and were written in the context of the culture of the day and with the way the world (or what they knew of the world at the time) was understood.

Life has evolved greatly over that time.
Texts people like to quote have been through many, many translations not only from one language to another but as individual languages evolve and change over time.

@onlytwo I don't know if anyone has suggested it (I've read your posts and about 20 pages of the thread) but you should look up the episode of the West Wing where 'the president' tears apart a staff member who was being homophobic and trying to claim she was right as it was 'in the bible'. Same applies to you here.

I agree with so much of this and I AM a Christian.

I do get frustrated with people like the OP trying to claim their own weird interpretation of Christianity is the only one.

Brilliant West Wing episode!

Marrying committed couples can indeed be an act of grace, but it becomes problematic when the church ignores or downplays what Scripture says about the purpose of sex and marriage.

What the scripture says about the purpose of sex and marriage is not downplayed or ignored @onlytwo . It is discussed in pre-marriage classes as well as it being a conversation between the individual couple and clergy member performing the service. Indeed it is often included in the Liturgy.

What do you want the church to do that it isnt doing now?

I posted earlier with Biblical references. Take a look.

We have all seen them and we have addressed them. You have not engaged with the comments addressing them.

She is busy asking Chat GodPT.

My intention is not to claim that my view is the only possible interpretation. Rather, I am sharing what I believe aligns with the historic and biblical teachings of Christianity which have been consistent across centuries and cultures.

I know there are different perspectives today, and I respect people’s freedom to disagree. But if Christianity is to mean more than just personal opinion, it’s worth considering what Scripture actually says and how the church has traditionally understood it, rather than redefining key teachings based on what feels comfortable or culturally acceptable.

My goal isn’t to impose my view, but to have an honest discussion about what it means to take Christian teachings seriously and live with integrity according to one’s faith.

I have engaged with most comments on this thread and have tried to respond to the points people have raised. I appreciate everyone who has taken the time to share their perspective even if we are not on the same page.