Presbyterian Minister Cancelled Wedding After Bride Declared Support for Same-Sex Marriage

[RaymondG]

I don't think that anyone here has suggested that the preacher's heart was full of hate or that he was unloving. For myself, I believe that the conscience that he is following may not yet be fully formed.

The false accusations of beliefs of hate in the heart or wrong doings, are just a ploys to make those that don't totally agree look and seem bad. It is to create division so that Truth is obscured. Truth has no need for negative implications.

 

[Hank77]

What does "support same sex marriage" mean in this context? Does it mean that one is willing to share a meal in the home of a gay couple? Does it mean one is willing to avoid trying to hit on one of such a couple, out of respect for their commitment to each other? Does it mean one is willing to share advice on how they can maintain their lawn better? Does it mean one is willing to share advice on how to get good marital counseling?

Her support was for same-sex marriage specifically.
My question would be what she supports about it and what she believes about it spiritually.
Does she support it because of the legal rights that it makes available to same-sex couples, such as being considered family for hospital visitation and medical decisions for an unconscious patient, natural inheritance rights that spouses receive legally, etc.?
Does she believe that a same-sex marriage is holy and sanctioned by God?

In my view there is a big difference and should make a difference in the decision of this pastor and other such situations.

 

[kepha31]

Interesting perspective. However, given the rate of divorce and remarriage among heterosexual couples, including among Christians, I will have to respectfully disagree with that assessment. In fact, I know several homosexuals, including homosexual couples, and none of them are a threat to me or to my family or to society as a whole. I think it's disingenuous to convict all homosexuals for the actions of a few who might support such an ideal that's addressed in the article. I think that would be like convicting all Christians for the actions of those lunatic people from the Westboro Baptist Church.

One more thing, please do me a favor and don't resort to the No True Scotsman fallacy concerning these particular Christians in response. I think doing so is nothing more than a lousy excuse and an absurd cop-out. Anyway, I've included two articles with the divorce rates among heterosexual couples, including Christians. I thought it would be helpful for this discussion to provide the information.

Marriage and Divorce

FactChecker: Divorce Rate Among Christians

Divorce a tragedy in itself, but there is no agenda to destroy society, although it is harmful regardless. It's a non sequitur to the issue of same sex unions.

Courage is an international apostolate of the Catholic Church, which ministers to persons with same-sex attractions.

 

[Winken]

I'm appalled by this discussion. I cannot believe those who are checking "the couple" in that option. This is not the Body of Christ.

 

[redleghunter]

I agree that both parties can't be correct in their view of same-sex marriage; at least one of them is mistaken. But I don't understand why that disagreement should prevent the wedding.

The very subject of contention IS marriage. Thus the controversy.

Suppose the disagreement were over something else:

It wasn't. The disagreement is specifically on marriage.

Suppose the bride believes in a pre-Tribulation Rapture, and the pastor doesn't; or the bride is a pacifist, while the pastor believes in Just War theory.

Irrelevant. None of the above have to do with Christian marriage.

Should the pastor refuse to marry the couple in a case like this? How much theological agreement must there be, between a couple and their pastor, before a pastor will marry the couple? Can they disagree about anything theological?

The subject was marriage. I think that is clear now.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Divorce a tragedy in itself, but there is no agenda to destroy society, although it is harmful regardless. It's a non sequitur to the issue of same sex unions.

I simply shared my opinion on what I think can be more detrimental than same sex marriage to society. As I said in my previous post, I know several homosexuals, including homosexual couples, and none of them are a threat to me or to my family or to society as a whole. I think it's disingenuous to convict all homosexuals for the actions of a few who might support such an ideal that's addressed in the article. I think that would be like convicting all Christians for the actions of those lunatic people from the Westboro Baptist Church. Furthermore, I think it's actually rather ill-advised to do so.

Courage is an international apostolate of the Catholic Church, which ministers to persons with same-sex attractions.

Well, that's nice to know, I suppose. However, I'm sure there are other apostolates of the Catholic Church, which would minister to heterosexual persons who are habitual adulterers or addicted to inappropriate contentography or who have divorced numerous times. I'm confident the Church realizes that there are more sexual sins that need to be addressed than just focusing (or obsessing) on homosexuality.

 

[Phil 1:21]

I hope you find comfort in your words and wisdom.

My comfort is in the Lord, but thank you nonetheless.

 

[hedrick]

My first reaction is: Didn't the couple understand what it means to be a member of a conservative confessional church? At least in the US they expect all members to share their beliefs, and unwillingness to be involved in anything showing approval of homosexuality is high on the list.

But I also think it's the job of the pastor not to let things get to this point. If he knew people in the wedding party were gay, he should have explored their views well enough to have come to this decision in the beginning.

Hopefully the folks will find another church that knows what the Bible actually is. If their theology is sufficiently divergent from expectations that they can't get married, they have no business going to that church again.

 

[kepha31]

I simply shared my opinion on what I think can be more detrimental than same sex marriage to society. As I said in my previous post, I know several homosexuals, including homosexual couples, and none of them are a threat to me or to my family or to society as a whole. I think it's disingenuous to convict all homosexuals for the actions of a few who might support such an ideal that's addressed in the article. I think that would be like convicting all Christians for the actions of those lunatic people from the Westboro Baptist Church. Furthermore, I think it's actually rather ill-advised to do so.

Well, that's nice to know, I suppose. However, I'm sure there are other apostolates of the Catholic Church, which would minister to heterosexual persons who are habitual adulterers or addicted to inappropriate contentography or who have divorced numerous times. I'm confident the Church realizes that there are more sexual sins that need to be addressed than just focusing (or obsessing) on homosexuality.

I share your confidence.

 

[hedrick]

In fairness, one of the problems here is that people are committed to a church because they grew up in it and have friends in it. That's not unreasonable. The church is supposed to be a community. But people don't leave families and communities because they disagree on something. So people stay in a conservative church even though they don't accept the official position on everything. This isn't just an issue for conservative Protestants. In the US, most Catholics disagree with the official position on a number of important issues, but stay in the Church because it's their church.

This is a conflict that's nearly impossible to resolve. A church has to decide to live with some level of disagreement, or enforce the rules. It's the right of a church to decide what approach it will take. Of course, they can expect to have to explain themselves to Jesus. I know which I'd rather defend.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

In fairness, one of the problems here is that people are committed to a church because they grew up in it and have friends in it. That's not unreasonable. The church is supposed to be a community. But people don't leave families and communities because they disagree on something. So people stay in a conservative church even though they don't accept the official position on everything. This isn't just an issue for conservative Protestants. In the US, most Catholics disagree with the official position on a number of important issues, but stay in the Church because it's their church.

This is a conflict that's nearly impossible to resolve. A church has to decide to live with some level of disagreement, or enforce the rules. It's the right of a church to decide what approach it will take. Of course, they can expect to have to explain themselves to Jesus.

Personally speaking, I think what you said is true. In fact, I think I'm an example of this scenario. I attend a very conservative church with my husband and our children. We've been going to this church for 15 years and when we first joined the church, I was relatively still conservative. I didn't entirely agree with the pastor and congregation at that time though, on what I considered, an overzealous patriotism for America, but I agreed to attend the church because my husband was interested in membership. We made the decision together to stay and our children were raised in this church.

However, my political views have become much more liberal over years with my personal involvement in social justice and political activism. I'm a liberal Christian now. We still attend this church, despite the fact that I simply don't like the political conservative and American patriotic overtones that I often encounter while I'm there. I don't have a problem with any of the members other than their conservative political opinions. So, to avoid any potential conflict, I simply don't discuss politics with any of them. My husband and I had once considered attending another church, but our children were adamant against the idea, so we stayed. I suppose, in essence, this church is our church.

 

[hedrick]

However, my political views have become much more liberal over years with my personal involvement in social justice and political activism. I'm a liberal Christian now. We still attend this church, despite the fact that I simply don't like the political conservative and American patriotic overtones that I often encounter while I'm there. I don't have a problem with any of the members other than their conservative political opinions. So, to avoid any potential conflict, I simply don't discuss politics with any of them. My husband and I had once considered attending another church, but our children were adamant against the idea, so we stayed. I suppose, in essence, this church is our church.

It depends upon the church. Not all conservative churches have the same expectations of members, and even those that have strong standards don't officially include politics (except gay rights). However conservative Presbyterian churches, at least in the US, expect all members to accept a fairly detailed confessional statement, stating any exceptions so the Session can judge whether they're OK. I don't believe other conservative churches are quite like that.

I could see remaining with a congregation whose members disagreed with me. But where there are formal requirements for accepting theology I don't believe in, I'd have a problem.

 

[miknik5]

The fact that these ancient attitudes have been largely put aside is proof to me that the Holy Spirit continues to work in the world.

ancient attitudes?

 

[JackRT]

ancient attitudes?

I think you know the attitudes I refer to.

 

[miknik5]

I think you know the attitudes I refer to.

I'm not sure at all. A flexible attitude is not always loving

 

[JackRT]

I'm not sure at all. A flexible attitude is not always loving

I can list a few ancient attitudes that were biblically sanctioned --- xenophobia, polygamy, homophobia, misogyny, slavery, genocide --- there are probably a few more.

 

[Tutorman]

A Minister of a Presbyterian church in Australia cancelled the wedding of a couple after the bride-to-be declared on Facebook that she supported same-sex marriage:

Church cancels wedding because bride and groom supported gay marriage on Facebook

These are the minister's reasons:

"After the pre-marital counselling that you attended and the sermons delivered at Ebenezer on this subject, you must surely appreciate that your commitment to same-sex marriage opposes the teaching of Christ Jesus and the scriptural position practiced by the Presbyterian Church of Australia and by me,"

"This conflict of views has practical consequences in relation to your upcoming wedding.

"By continuing to officiate it would appear either that I support your views on same-sex marriage or that I am uncaring about this matter. As you know, neither statement is correct.

"Also, if the wedding proceeded in the Ebenezer St John's church buildings, the same inferences could be drawn about the Presbyterian denomination. Such inferences would be wrong."​

These are the couple's responses:

"We feel this decision is absolutely disgraceful and is a disgrace to you and all the church, especially when we have been loyal and valued members of this congregation for 10 years,"

"You were made aware from the beginning of our proceedings that we had gay friends and also that people in our wedding party were gay. How could you assume that we would abandon them or degrade them with regards to same-sex marriage?

"We understand we did agree with the teachings of the church in our marriage counselling but just because we agree with that for our own lives, doesn't mean that we have to push those beliefs onto others."​

What do you think? Whose reasons do you think are more valid to support their decision? The church minister or the couple? Why?


EDIT: Letter added below

Malcolm Turnbull defends right of church to refuse to marry couples who support gay marriage

good for him

 

[Shiloh Raven]

I can list a few ancient attitudes that were biblically sanctioned --- xenophobia, polygamy, homophobia, misogyny, slavery, genocide --- there are probably a few more.

Not to mention the seven other marriages recorded in the bible, which many Christians seem to forget when they talk about a 'biblical marriage' being only between one man and one woman.

 

[Targaryen]

Not to mention the seven other marriages recorded in the bible, which many Christians seem to forget when they talk about a 'biblical marriage' being only between one man and one woman.

It's no surprise though, the Bible's been used as a justification for acts that in this day and age makes most of us cringe.Cherry picking type theology is nothing really new.

 

[miknik5]

I can list a few ancient attitudes that were biblically sanctioned --- xenophobia, polygamy, homophobia, misogyny, slavery, genocide --- there are probably a few more.

Take it up with GOD sir

If your conscience is at peace then possibly GOD will justify you?


I'm not sure sir