The Law According to Mark: Binding When It Condemns Someone Else, Optional When It Binds Him

Mark’s latest post would be easier to analyze if somebody could first determine exactly what the hell he is trying to say.

Apparently, we weren’t the only ones having that problem.

One commenter very politely asked:

“Forgive my ignorance, but may I ask: are you saying one need not be legally married by the State to be married in God’s eyes? Or by a church?”

That may be the nicest possible translation of:

“Mark, what the hell does this mean?”

And that is worth mentioning because this wasn’t someone attacking him. It appears to be someone sincerely trying to understand the message.

When your own audience has to request clarification of a two-sentence theological proclamation, perhaps the problem isn’t everyone else’s comprehension.

Perhaps it’s the writing.

First We Have to Translate the Sermon

Mark wrote:

“You don’t need to get married with the State to be married ? Nowhere in the Bible! If you do that it is like making 2 covenants one with God and Satan?”

There are missing words, misplaced question marks, unclear sentence structure and an ending that could grammatically mean several different things.

Does he mean:

• one covenant with God and another with Satan?
• one covenant jointly with God and Satan?
• the State itself is Satan?
• getting legally married creates two marriages?
• church marriage is required?
• no ceremony is required at all?

Who knows?

A commenter literally had to ask.

I wouldn’t claim Mark was drunk when he wrote it because there is no evidence of that. But his public writing frequently has the rushed, garbled quality of something posted before grammar, punctuation, proofreading or even basic clarity had a chance to become involved.

And this is coming from someone presenting himself as a teacher of biblical marriage.

If you’re going to explain God’s rules for everybody else’s relationships, being able to communicate the rule would seem like a reasonable starting point.

Still, the most charitable interpretation appears to be this:

You do not need the State in order to be married. Marriage is a covenant with God, and involving the government somehow creates another covenant that Mark compares with Satan.

Fine.

Let’s work with that.

Because that’s where the bigger problem begins.

Wait—Didn’t the State Matter Last Week?

This is the same Victory in Marriage worldview that previously proclaimed:

“If you are separated you are not DIVORCED! You are still Married.”

Another post condemned someone for apparently dating while still legally married.

There were accusations of adultery.

Lies.

Darkness.

False friends.

Turning away from God.

The fact that the person was still legally married was central to the prosecution.

Back then, government marital status apparently carried tremendous moral weight.

The State had not finalized a divorce.

Therefore:

YOU ARE STILL MARRIED.

Case closed.

Except now Mark apparently tells us that the State doesn’t make you married in the first place.

Actually, involving the State might somehow mean entering a covenant with Satan.

Well, this got complicated quickly.

So Which Is It, Mark?

Does the State determine marital status?

Because Mark seems to want two completely different answers depending upon whom the answer inconveniences.

When somebody else is separated and he wants to accuse them of adultery:

The State says you’re married. Therefore YOU’RE MARRIED.

When Mark wants to explain his latest theology:

You don’t need the State to be married. Why would you involve the State? That’s practically another covenant with Satan.

That isn’t merely a contradiction in Facebook posts.

It demonstrates something much more interesting:

Authority appears to become authoritative when Mark can use it against someone else.

When that same kind of authority creates obligations, restrictions or consequences for him?

Suddenly everything becomes open to interpretation.

The Law Is Very Important—For Other People

This is where the marriage contradiction starts looking familiar.

Mark appears very comfortable appealing to rules when the rule can condemn somebody else’s conduct.

Marriage laws?

Very important when someone else is separated.

Court orders?

Very serious concepts when discussing what other people should or shouldn’t do.

Financial responsibilities?

Important moral territory when talking about responsibility generally.

Accountability?

One of Mark’s favorite subjects.

But when legal obligations, court requirements or accountability land on Mark himself, the simplicity disappears.

Then we get explanations.

Technicalities.

Reasons.

Excuses.

Alternative interpretations.

Claims that something cannot be done.

Arguments about why the requirement doesn’t apply the way everyone thinks it applies.

And frequently, somebody else becomes responsible for why Mark hasn’t done what Mark was required to do.

That is the larger contradiction.

Accountability for Thee, Context for Me

Mark’s public writing tends to live in absolutes.

Truth versus lies.

Good versus evil.

Light versus darkness.

God versus the world.

Faithfulness versus adultery.

And now apparently:

God versus Satan.

There isn’t much nuance when he’s passing judgment on somebody else.

But watch what happens when the standard points back toward him.

Suddenly nuance arrives by the truckload.

There is context.

There are circumstances.

There is another side.

There are reasons.

There are misunderstandings.

There are explanations for why an obligation wasn’t completed.

There are explanations for why a process wasn’t followed.

There are explanations for why somebody else is actually responsible.

Funny how complicated morality becomes when you’re the person expected to comply.

Principles Become Inconvenient Sometimes

That’s actually one of the easiest ways to distinguish a principle from a convenience.

A real principle eventually costs you something.

If court orders matter, they matter when the court orders you to do something.

If legal status determines whether someone is married, it doesn’t stop mattering when you decide government marriage is spiritually questionable.

If accountability is important, accountability cannot mean repeatedly explaining everybody else’s failures while endlessly contextualizing your own.

If rules only remain absolute when they’re being applied to somebody else, they aren’t really rules.

They’re weapons.

And Then There’s the Comment

Perhaps the funniest part of this particular episode is that before anyone could even argue with Mark’s theology, one of his readers first had to ask him to explain what he meant.

Politely, of course.

“Forgive my ignorance…”

No.

Your ignorance probably isn’t the problem.

The sentence is a mess.

When the person preaching biblical certainty produces a statement so grammatically tangled that a friendly commenter has to ask whether he’s talking about civil marriage, church marriage or marriage “in God’s eyes,” perhaps it would be wise to spend a little less time defining everybody else’s morality and a little more time defining your own sentence.

Because after we finally untangle the grammar, we’re left with a remarkably simple contradiction:

When legal marriage can be used to condemn somebody else, legal marriage is binding.

When government involvement conflicts with Mark’s newest belief, apparently the State doesn’t determine marriage at all.

And that may be the most consistent rule Mark has demonstrated:

The rule is absolute until the rule applies to Mark.

Then apparently we need clarification.

---

And Here’s the Part That Makes This Even More Absurd

There is one rather important detail missing from Mark’s sudden theological debate about whether the State determines marriage:

Mark and Tori are still legally married.

There has been no completed divorce.

And that matters because Mark has previously been perfectly comfortable telling other separated people that separation doesn’t count:

“If you are separated you are not DIVORCED! You are still Married.”

Okay.

Then by Mark’s own standard:

Mark is still married.

Not spiritually.
Not metaphorically.
Not according to somebody else’s interpretation.

Legally married.

And the divorce has not simply been sitting there because everyone completed their paperwork and the court forgot to finish it.

According to the case history we have, Tori sought discovery documents in July of 2024 and followed that with another financial declaration in August of 2024. Mark did not provide the requested responses reflected in that history. His attorney later filed a notice of withdrawal on March 13, 2025.

That does not, by itself, tell us why the attorney withdrew, and I’m not going to pretend it does.

But the sequence certainly matters:

Discovery requested.
Financial information requested.
No response from Mark reflected in the record we have.
Attorney withdraws.
Divorce remains unresolved.

Meanwhile, Mark has made repeated claims about the house—how it is his, how they built it, how much money he put into it, and why he believes he has a substantial financial interest in it.

Those are exactly the kinds of claims that make financial disclosure important in a divorce.

And then, while still legally married himself, Mark goes online preaching that the State may not really be what makes a marriage a marriage at all.

Convenient timing.

The Standard Was Much Simpler When It Applied to Someone Else

When another person was separated, Mark’s position appeared crystal clear:

No divorce decree? You are still married.

There was no discussion about whether God had released the marriage.

No distinction between civil marriage and spiritual covenant.

No philosophical argument about whether government has authority over marriage.

No suggestion that involving the State might amount to some second covenant with Satan.

Just:

YOU ARE STILL MARRIED.

But now Mark himself remains legally married while his own divorce remains unresolved, and suddenly we’re getting a seminar on why the State may not matter.

That is the contradiction.

The question is no longer merely:

“What does Mark believe about marriage?”

The better question is:

“Does Mark believe the same rule applies when he is the one still legally married?”

Because according to the standard he previously preached to everyone else, the answer should be easy.

Yes.

You Don’t Get to Rewrite the Rule Because You’re Now Standing Under It

This is exactly the larger problem with selective accountability.

When the law, court system or legal definition can be used to criticize someone else, Mark treats it as authoritative.

When those same systems require disclosure, compliance, documentation or uncomfortable financial transparency from him, suddenly the conversation becomes much more complicated.

That does not mean every legal dispute proves wrongdoing.

It means the standard should remain consistent.

If legal divorce is what determines whether another separated person is “still married,” then legal divorce determines whether Mark is still married too.

And right now?

By that standard:

Mark is still married.

So perhaps before explaining to Facebook whether the State, God and Satan are all somehow parties to a marriage covenant, there is a much simpler issue to address:

Finish complying with the process of ending the marriage you already told everyone else still counts.