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

[Targaryen]

You can argue all of those things. My point is simply that Christian concern about sexual immorality is not comparable to prohibitions on shellfish etc. The latter are irrelevant to Christians, but the former is not.

I kinda find this laughable. Yes it is, and why? Cause it's is that type of reasons brought into place by those that use the argument more often then not.

As a priest, you have to be aware of this. Down playing it is disingenuous.

 

[Paidiske]

I didn't actually follow your point there, Targaryen.

But as a priest, I also feel I have a responsibility to promote accurate understanding of Scripture. I find many people ignorant of why most of the Mosaic law doesn't apply to Christians, but a few things still do, so I try to take the opportunity to explain.

 

[miknik5]

The point is that the bride has committed no sin. All she has done is to "declare" that she supports same sex marriage. We are not told what her motive is for that. It is obvious that she is about to marry her fiance who is a man, so she is not intending to engage in same-sex marriage herself. Just because we declare our support for something doesn't mean that we intend to engage in it ourselves. It may be that we might be defending people from hateful bullies who prey on vulnerable people. The reality it, same sex marriages are part of our society now and there is little we can do about it. A person's sexuality is none of my business.

At present, the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand does not support same sex marriages, and there is a situation arising where ministers could be subject to complaint under the Bill of Rights if they decide not to agree to marry such couples. This is a conflict between the law of the land and the principles of Christian holiness. It is now a condition for secular marriage celebrants to conduct same sex marriages as part of their contract, otherwise they cannot be appointed as celebrants. So a Presbyterian minister has to make a decision whether to comply with the Bill of Rights and not discriminate between a standard marriage and a same-sex marriage, or face legal action against him for refusing to marry same-sex couples.

I need to make it clear that as a Christian believer, I don't support same-sex marriages, and if I ever considered being a marriage celebrant, I would refuse the role if I was required to conduct such marriages. But I don't support the bullying of those who show their support for it, as if they have committed some grievous sin by declaring their support. There are many worse sins that are rampant in our church congregations being swept under the carpet than just mere support for something many church ministers disagree with. I think the present situation with this bride is majoring in a minor, when that minister should be dealing with other more grievous sins in his own congregation. It goes along with Jesus' comment about taking the log out of one's own eye before trying to take a speck out of another's.

Oscarr

Your post doesn't make sense to me

Specifically the paragraph I bolded


How can you say that you wouldn't officiate if it were you but then fault this priest

 

[Targaryen]

An accurate understanding of Scripture is claimed by everyone these days, including heterodoxical Christians, Mormons even Atheists using Scripture passages as a argument for their lack of belief. What I'm saying is, to others, the understanding of Mosaic law and how it actually applies or doesn't apply to Christians isn't apart of the basic argument. Hence why I'm saying, it's disingenuous to claim that the use of pointing out Levitical dictates to highlight one issue over another doesn't actually have merit.

 

[hedrick]

You can argue all of those things. My point is simply that Christian concern about sexual immorality is not comparable to prohibitions on shellfish etc. The latter are irrelevant to Christians, but the former is not.

You're right. But the question is: what standards? OT standards allowed polygamy, sex with slaves (which would be classified as rape today), many young people were pressured or forced into marriages, and there was little emphasis on preventing abuse or ways to deal with it. Basic principles of informed consent weren't formulated. In many ways standards today are tighter, but they focus on the nature of the relationship and the effect on people. Our church enforces the modern standards, and I think we're right to do so.

Second, it's not so clear that Christians actually apply the passage you're referencing, which I suspect is Act 15:29. There's reason to think that this was really a minimal set of standards to permit table fellowship between Gentiles and Jews. Hence it had at least some food laws. (The prohibition against "blood" was probably eating food that still had the blood in it, Lev 17:10ff, and the prohibition against eating animals that have been strangled is also Lev. food law.) Today this isn't an issue, and Jews are normally willing to eat with Gentiles anyway. To my knowledge, few Christians worry about the food law provisions of Acts 15:29. Obviously I'm not saying we should tolerate sexual immorality, but I don't think the NT provision should be seen as requiring us to use OT or 1st Cent definitions of sexual immorality.

 

[Paidiske]

Obviously I'm not saying we should tolerate sexual immorality, but I don't think the NT provision should be seen as requiring us to use OT or 1st Cent definitions of sexual immorality.

That's not what I'm saying either. I'm just saying that lumping those two different sorts of behaviours together - sexual immorality and Mosaic covenant requirements - is incorrect.

 

[hedrick]

That's not what I'm saying either. I'm just saying that lumping those two different sorts of behaviours together - sexual immorality and Mosaic covenant requirements - is incorrect.

But in fact they are lumped together in Acts 15:29.

 

[Paidiske]

No... Acts 15 is all about not doing that. "Here are certain basic things Christians must not do. The rest doesn't apply."

You can argue about why those things and not others were chosen, and all the rest, but the point is that it's wrong to say to a Christian who's concerned about sexual morality but wears mixed fibres or eats shellfish that he's a hypocrite; he's being perfectly consistent with the NT vision of what applies to us and what doesn't.

 

[hedrick]

No... Acts 15 is all about not doing that. "Here are certain basic things Christians must not do. The rest doesn't apply."

You can argue about why those things and not others were chosen, and all the rest, but the point is that it's wrong to say to a Christian who's concerned about sexual morality but wears mixed fibres or eats shellfish that he's a hypocrite; he's being perfectly consistent with the NT vision of what applies to us and what doesn't.

Shellfish aren't included, but some other Mosaic provisions are. It certainly was intended to avoid imposing the *whole* Mosaic law on Gentile Christians, but I don't think you can say that there are no Mosaic provisions in it. One commentary notes that these are the provisions from Lev 17-18, and 15:29 even lists them in the same order.

 

[Targaryen]

Acts 15:29- that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled* and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.’

Seems fairly in line with Hedrick's point then yours I'm afraid.

 

[Radagast]

No... Acts 15 is all about not doing that. "Here are certain basic things Christians must not do. The rest doesn't apply."

You can argue about why those things and not others were chosen, and all the rest, but the point is that it's wrong to say to a Christian who's concerned about sexual morality but wears mixed fibres or eats shellfish that he's a hypocrite; he's being perfectly consistent with the NT vision of what applies to us and what doesn't.

Indeed. Acts 15:29 does also forbid the eating of blood, but that's not a reference to Mosaic law; it's a reference to Genesis 9:4 (so it has nothing to do with shellfish and mixed fibres -- as you know, of course).

 

[Radagast]

Shellfish aren't included, but some other Mosaic provisions are.

The prohibition on eating blood is included, but that's from Genesis.

 

[samir]

God said to Forgive 70x7 times. Clearly the minister doesnt care about that.

God says forgive IF they repent. Did the bride submit to church leadership and renounce her support of same sex relationships?

 

[hedrick]

Indeed. Acts 15:29 does also forbid the eating of blood, but that's not a reference to Mosaic law; it's a reference to Genesis 9:4 (so it has nothing to do with shellfish and mixed fibres -- as you know, of course).

I've used that argument myself in the past. But the list from Gen 9:4 is eating blood, murder, and be fruitful and multiply. Only one of these overlaps the 4 items in Act 15:29. In college I was told that the rabbis had expanded the list from Gen 9:4 into at least 7 items, all of which were considered binding on all mankind, rather than just Israel. The assertion was that Act 15:29 was based on those Noachic laws.

But since college I've read that this may well not be the case. Act 15:29 doesn't have 7 rules. It matches Lev 17-18 tolerably, with some exegesis. Those chapters describe things that the pagans had done in Israel, resulting in the land vomiting them out. Perhaps there was an understanding that that means they are binding on all of humanity.

My point is that of the 4 things in Act 15:29, 2 of them are the basic provisions on which kosher slaughtering of animals is based. While Lev may view them as incumbent on all of humanity, to my knowledge, Christians don't practice them today.

 

[Radagast]

But since college I've read that this may well not be the case. Act 15:29 doesn't have 7 rules. It matches Lev 17-18 tolerably, with some exegesis. Those chapters describe things that the pagans had done in Israel, resulting in the land vomiting them out. Perhaps there was an understanding that that means they are binding on all of humanity.

You miss the point. Because the ultimate source of the prohibition on eating blood in Act 15:29 is in Genesis, that prohibition is in a different category from Levitical laws like the prohibition on shellfish.

 

[hedrick]

You miss the point. Because the ultimate source of the prohibition on eating blood in Act 15:29 is in Genesis, that prohibition is in a different category from Levitical laws like the prohibition on shellfish.

But I don't think the evidence suggests that Gen is actually the source of those prohibitions.

 

[Radagast]

But I don't think the evidence suggests that Gen is actually the source of those prohibitions.

OK, I give up.

Surely anyone can see that ultimate source of the prohibition on eating blood in Act 15:29 is in the Noahic Covenant of Genesis. To argue otherwise would require claiming that those at the Council of Jerusalem were unaware of the Genesis passage. The prohibition may have been repeated later in the OT, but that's irrelevant.

 

[hedrick]

OK, I give up.

Surely anyone can see that ultimate source of the prohibition on eating blood in Act 15:29 is in the Noahic Covenant of Genesis. To argue otherwise would require claiming that those at the Council of Jerusalem were unaware of the Genesis passage. The prohibition may have been repeated later in the OT, but that's irrelevant.

But we were talking about sexual immorality. Even if Gen is the source of the prohibition on eating blood (and I think the evidence is against it), it's not the source of the prohibition on sexual immorality, and the one thing it might be the source for is something that Christians don't (as far as I know) currently considering binding.

If you want the whole list in Acts, including the topic under discussion, you need to look elsewhere.

It's actually interesting why Christians don't enforce the whole list in Acts 15:29. Or are there Christians who will only buy kosher meat?

 

[Radagast]

nm

 

[PloverWing]

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.

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 didn't appreciate that there were Protestant churches that expected this level of detailed doctrinal conformity. The churches I've spent the most time with -- Southern Baptist, Quaker, and Episcopal -- all allow a diversity of belief, within some pretty broad guidelines.

Yes, if you're in that kind of church -- if the pastor expects both bride and groom to be conservative Presbyterians who have affirmed a lengthy confessional statement -- then I can see the pastor rejecting them for expressing dissenting opinions. That's not what I, personally, would want in a pastor or a church, but it makes sense in the context of that kind of church.

Are members who grew up in a conservative Presbyterian church from infancy also expected to affirm the confessional statement? It couldn't be at the time of infant baptism; is there a particular age at which they have to affirm the statement in order to continue in membership?