Should a Christian attend a gay wedding ?

[ralliann]

It doesn't say, "and in order to cleave to their wives they have to go through a full Christian ceremony, performed in church by a vicar".

It is something God does here. What God joined together. " Joined together by God in holy matrimony".

 

[public hermit]

Wedding is an event which comes from God's word in scripture. We used to call "holy matirmony". This is the problem. Taking terms which are biblical "holy" and dismissing them out of hand. So as Christians should we do that? Or should we retain their original meaning?

Lots of folks who never heard of or read the Bible have married. One can say the aboriginal is not married because they didn't do it by the Bible or believe in the right God, but they could care less because they have made a commitment. All pronouncements to the contrary are only going to matter to the one making them.

One mistake some Christians seem to make is conflating a religious ceremony with a civil and lawful binding between people. Do whatever you want at the ceremony, and lots of so-called Christian weddings these days lack the proclamation and sacrament, but it is not so much legal when the ordained says "I pronounce you..." but when that signature is put to paper.

I believe this supposed culture war would have played out differently if Christians had kept the two separate. Whatever the case, Christians should make that distinction now and focus on doing what seems right to them.

The other mistake some Christians seem to make is feeling justified in making condemnations of gay marriage in spite of the track record of marriage among Christians, which is not good. That's not a critique but a brute fact. Christians should have at least waited to see if the track record among homosexual marriages was worse in terms of longevity and general happiness in the marriage. A religious group can condemn murder in others on account of that religion's standards. But if the murder rate among the adherents of that religion tracks right along with everyone else, then the better plan would be to focus on one's own house, so to speak. I don't think it's the only reason not to make judgments and condemnations, but it should be sufficient to convince one to refrain.

 

[Strong in Him]

It is something God does here. What God joined together. " Joined together by God in holy matrimony".

If a couple don't believe, or accept, that God joined them together, or even that there is a God - what then?
A humanist service would not make any reference to God.

 

[DamianWarS]

Can we discuss this important topic.

For background I suggest viewing this video that presents the issue quite thoroughly.

Your considered comments most welcome.

The incest comparison Gagnon brings up is in a church vacuum. In 1 Cor 5 Paul opens saying "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you..." The "you" part if the Corinthian church. Mainstream churches would condemn the act of incest as well as homosexuality and revoke membership/disipline the individuals involed. They would also not marry the couple. This is not the issue being raised however.

Attending a gay wedding that is outside of the churches jurisdiction is a different matter. 1 Cor 5 is still the right passage we just have to read the whole thing.

Gagnon seems to stop at verse 9 in its conclusions which says "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people" but if you keep on reading we get further context v10 "not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world." Paul then expands in v12-13 "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside"

The lesson from 1 Corinthians 5 is that inside the church should not support sexual immorality or even tolerate it within it's ranks. We are to judge those within the church that the church has authority over and disciple appropriately. However for those outside the church, who are our mission, it is not our business to judge them. We don't need to support their sin but we are still called to minister to them in their places.

Gagnon seems to take an lofty approach of judging everyone the same way. Paul takes a missional approach and encourages interactions with all kinds of people baring none from the gospel.

 

[DamianWarS]

I believe this supposed culture war would have played out differently if Christians had kept the two separate. Whatever the case, Christians should make that distinction now and focus on doing what seems right to them.

I dont think the governemnt should be involved with marrying people and they should stick to civil unions and leave "marriage" definable within religious institutions to recognize or not recognize.

This allows the church to keep their values and allows those outside the church to seek labels that are defined elsewhere. This also allows more diversity in civil unions that don't have to be romantically based but instead two people living together seeking government reconition for a shared finances.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I cant recall anyone on this thread advocating the mistreatment of others...

I reckon mistreatment is in the eye of the beholder. If one doesn't attend his lesbian daughter's wedding, I suspect she might disagree.

 

[public hermit]

I dont think the governemnt should be involved with marrying people and they should stick to civil unions and leave "marriage" definable within religious institutions to recognize or not recognize.

This allows the church to keep their values and allows those outside the church to seek labels that are defined elsewhere. This also allows more diversity in civil unions that don't have to be romantically based but instead two people living together seeking government reconition for a shared finances.

I would agree if Christianity were the only religion/culture to have a religious/cultural conception of marriage. The civil/lawful boundaries and protections have to cover a variety of understandings of "marriage." For better or for worse, I think the onus of ensuring a distinction rests on that of the various religious/cultural expressions. This would be true even if gay marriage was not legal. Gay marriage has simply exposed the mistake, I think.

 

[Brihaha]

1 Corinthians 10:13 KJV
13. There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

So either God is in fact NOT faithful to give you an escape from this temptation, or this temptation is NOT common to man.

But you have to want to escape. Indulging yourself and making up excuses why it is ok for you to do what scripture clearly says is sin is not seeking the escape route.

I would posit God gives condemners of gays that same escape route from this temptation to judge and condemn other sinners. Especially those folks who are without faith in God. I Corinthians 5:12-13. James 4:11 warns us about being judges rather than doers of the law. And James 3:6. The tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity that defileth the whole body. Man cannot tame the tongue, as it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. Can we bless God out of one side of our mouths while cursing other people made after the similtude of God from the other side of our mouths? Does a fountain from the same reservoir spew both sweet water and bitter? Can a fig tree bear olives? No. So can NO fountain both yield salt water and fresh water. One cannot have partial faith without works and expect God to know them on judgement day. James 2:8-9 warns us to fulfill the royal commandment to love all our neighbors as we love ourselves. And those who show favoritism or partiality are committing sins and are convicted as transgressors of His law.

I do not have to spend time here trying to warn other Christians about how judging pagans condemns ourselves to the same judgment. I do it because God inspires me and is pleased with lost sheep returning to Him and His Word. It's our duty to keep ourselves (Christians) in line, not to judge those without God.

I could be wrong. Yet love trumps hate. And mercy triumphs over judgment. This is extremely difficult to put into words but in the Holy Spirit I trust. And I feel the Ghost now that I've been blessed with more faith. And I can have a measure of compassion and love towards all my neighbors. This doesn't come from my own mortal being, but is a blessing from God. I pray for this wisdom and understanding. And I am often blessed with God answering, because I genuinely seek His grace and guidance.

 

[ralliann]

Lots of folks who never heard of or read the Bible have married. One can say the aboriginal is not married because they didn't do it by the Bible or believe in the right God, but they could care less because they have made a commitment. All pronouncements to the contrary are only going to matter to the one making them.

One mistake some Christians seem to make is conflating a religious ceremony with a civil and lawful binding between people. Do whatever you want at the ceremony, and lots of so-called Christian weddings these days lack the proclamation and sacrament, but it is not so much legal when the ordained says "I pronounce you..." but when that signature is put to paper.

I believe this supposed culture war would have played out differently if Christians had kept the two separate. Whatever the case, Christians should make that distinction now and focus on doing what seems right to them.

The other mistake some Christians seem to make is feeling justified in making condemnations of gay marriage in spite of the track record of marriage among Christians, which is not good. That's not a critique but a brute fact. Christians should have at least waited to see if the track record among homosexual marriages was worse in terms of longevity and general happiness in the marriage. A religious group can condemn murder in others on account of that religion's standards. But if the murder rate among the adherents of that religion tracks right along with everyone else, then the better plan would be to focus on one's own house, so to speak. I don't think it's the only reason not to make judgments and condemnations, but it should be sufficient to convince one to refrain.

Marriage has been from the beginning, so yes lots of people who never heard of the bible bible practiced it. Despite whatever ceremonies they included (or not). It is natural law. Concubines are wives too. What has this to do with two men or two women being joined together? Civil unions is what they are.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I disagree, John 15:2 is referring to cutting off or removing the branch from the Vine, not from this world. The Greek word translated to “taketh away” when used in reference to anything that is attached to something means to cut off or remove.

The context of “abide” being used in John 15 is to stay, remain, continue. He’s using the word repeatedly in verses 3-7 telling His 11 faithful apostles to remain in Him, so it has nothing to do with unbelievers because they cannot remain in Christ if they have never been in Christ to begin with. Jesus tells the 11 apostles to remain in Him, then He tells them why they must remain in Him, then He tells them the consequences of not remaining in Him, then He tells them what they can expect if they remain in Him.

Why would this warning not be for the sake of Judas ?

 

[public hermit]

Marriage has been from the beginning, so yes lots of people who never heard of the bible bible practiced it. Despite whatever ceremonies they included (or not). It is natural law. Concubines are wives too. What has this to do with two men or two women being joined together? Civil unions is what they are.

The Christian idea that marriage is based in natural law, assuming that it is, is informed by the more general notion of natural law being grounded in divine law, which is a notion developed by Christian theologians. You're still assuming all conceptions of marriage should conform to those of one religious understanding. That's just not going to work in a society where not everyone adheres to that one understanding. That doesn't mean you have to accept or approve of other understandings within the culture, but it does mean any expectation that they conform to that one understanding is not justified. Certainly, any appropriation of civil law for that end is egregiously out of order.

More generally, we have to accept the reality of what is now understood as acceptable in the larger culture and figure out our best response. I disagree with those that think the only response is condemnation and ostracizing those who enter into marriage with a same-sex partner, and I disagree for reasons I and others have stated. I think if Christians would drop the condemnation and embrace loving even those in such relationships, it would do more for the kingdom than condemnation. Loving those we see as engaging in sin is not approval. It's love.

As I said before, at what point do I wish ill for those in same-sex marriages? There is no such point. There is no point that I should wish ill for anyone. If that's the case, I can attend a same-sex wedding, wish them well and pray for them, even if I disagree. If I don't do that, I am more concerned about my righteousness than I am about their well-being. That's a spiritually dangerous road to go down, which is partly why we are commanded to not judge.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Why would this warning not be for the sake of Judas ?

Because he wasn’t there, he had already left to go and betray Jesus back in chapter 13.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I would posit God gives condemners of gays that same escape route from this temptation to judge and condemn other sinners. Especially those folks who are without faith in God. I Corinthians 5:12-13. James 4:11 warns us about being judges rather than doers of the law. And James 3:6. The tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity that defileth the whole body. Man cannot tame the tongue, as it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. Can we bless God out of one side of our mouths while cursing other people made after the similtude of God from the other side of our mouths? Does a fountain from the same reservoir spew both sweet water and bitter? Can a fig tree bear olives? No. So can NO fountain both yield salt water and fresh water. One cannot have partial faith without works and expect God to know them on judgement day. James 2:8-9 warns us to fulfill the royal commandment to love all our neighbors as we love ourselves. And those who show favoritism or partiality are committing sins and are convicted as transgressors of His law.

I do not have to spend time here trying to warn other Christians about how judging pagans condemns ourselves to the same judgment. I do it because God inspires me and is pleased with lost sheep returning to Him and His Word. It's our duty to keep ourselves (Christians) in line, not to judge those without God.

I could be wrong. Yet love trumps hate. And mercy triumphs over judgment. This is extremely difficult to put into words but in the Holy Spirit I trust. And I feel the Ghost now that I've been blessed with more faith. And I can have a measure of compassion and love towards all my neighbors. This doesn't come from my own mortal being, but is a blessing from God. I pray for this wisdom and understanding. And I am often blessed with God answering, because I genuinely seek His grace and guidance.

This is all dismissed by one simple fact.
It is not "judgment." It is obvious observation. This is a common modernism error that falls on it's face with some simple logic from scripture and just common sense. And in this case it is even less judgmental because the sinners are not only openly declaring that they are sinning but are flaunting it in the face of God.
The scripture from cover to cover points out sin and sinners and warns them that they are on the road to destruction. It is not "judging" until someone picks up a stone and flings it. And that is going to happen on the day of judgment and God will be the righteous judge. And that will happen also because we do not warn them to repent and get on the right path.

If people do not point out sin, nobody will know what it is and nobody will know to repent.
It is not "love" to watch your neighbor drive off a cliff without warning them. Many will have the unpleasant experience of looking down from heaven into hell to see the people they supported in their sin, wave, and yell to then "Hey! At least I loved you and did not offend! I was so much better than those mean ones. We were so much more spiritual and religious than they. Sorry about you being down there.. Not sure what happened. But we are ok up here!"
If the Holy Spirit was not telling me about the plethora of scriptural passages that warn sinners about hell, I would hope someone would tell me to check up on what spirit it was I was listening to.
Other than that, what you have presented is boiler plate universalism. Everybody will be saved regardless of what they do... even those who never repent and never call on the name of the Lord to be saved. It is just religious and spiritual sounding fluff. It does not reflect the horrors of hell or the terrible price what was paid by Jesus to keep us from hell.
God did not simply love the sinner into salvation. He did not simply "poof" save everyone. Jesus suffered and died a terrible death and separation from God to save those who believe in Him. To dismiss the sins that sent Him to the cross and death does God, Jesus, and the gospel great injury. Who needs Jesus if nobody was going to hell anyway?

 

[Carl Emerson]

You can LOL and mock this all you want - I am telling you that there are some people who are gay, whose family/faith/society tell them that they shouldn't be and who would rather end their lives rather than be punished, ostracised or imprisoned. You don't have to believe me - it doesn't change the facts.

Dismissing their distress as "a spirit of lust" is unkind. If you haven't walked in their shoes, don't judge.

losing your life for a cause does not validate the cause.

Paul mentions this here...

1 Cor 13

3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

 

[Brihaha]

This is all dismissed by one simple fact.
It is not "judgment." It is obvious observation. This is a common modernism error that falls on it's face with some simple logic from scripture and just common sense. And in this case it is even less judgmental because the sinners are not only openly declaring that they are sinning but are flaunting it in the face of God.
The scripture from cover to cover points out sin and sinners and warns them that they are on the road to destruction. It is not "judging" until someone picks up a stone and flings it. And that is going to happen on the day of judgment and God will be the righteous judge. And that will happen also because we do not warn them to repent and get on the right path.

If people do not point out sin, nobody will know what it is and nobody will know to repent.
It is not "love" to watch your neighbor drive off a cliff without warning them. Many will have the unpleasant experience of looking down from heaven into hell to see the people they supported in their sin, wave, and yell to then "Hey! At least I loved you and did not offend! I was so much better than those mean ones. We were so much more spiritual and religious than they. Sorry about you being down there.. Not sure what happened. But we are ok up here!"
If the Holy Spirit was not telling me about the plethora of scriptural passages that warn sinners about hell, I would hope someone would tell me to check up on what spirit it was I was listening to.
Other than that, what you have presented is boiler plate universalism. Everybody will be saved regardless of what they do... even those who never repent and never call on the name of the Lord to be saved. It is just religious and spiritual sounding fluff. It does not reflect the horrors of hell or the terrible price what was paid by Jesus to keep us from hell.
God did not simply love the sinner into salvation. He did not simply "poof" save everyone. Jesus suffered and died a terrible death and separation from God to save those who believe in Him. To dismiss the sins that sent Him to the cross and death does God, Jesus, and the gospel great injury. Who needs Jesus if nobody was going to hell anyway?

Go ahead and keep "warning " the pagans and unbelievers if you must. This is your choice. It's not your duty though. All this indignation amounts to in my view is gay opponents showing favoritism and partiality to sinners who are heterosexual. Which condemns one as a transgressor of the law. The insidious aspect is that people deceive themselves into believing their hatred and indignation is somehow righteous.

I am certainly not here to say anyone will be saved. I am here to warn "Christians" they may not be as saved and justified as they believe, if they disobey the word of God. And to try to learn myself. I haven't been a regular member of a church in 40 years.

There may be a very good reason God has kept me from organized religion in America. I haven't been tainted by false doctrine and biased, flawed church practices. I would love to find a comfortable church in which to worship God. The sad thing I have discovered is there are far more compassionate, honest folks in my AA meetings than I encounter in my church visits. People who share a common character defect who understand that working together helps each of us. We don't need to view ourselves as superior, we are all equal in our suffering. And we all gain more by listening and understanding than we gain from criticizing or marginalizing people who are different.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Go ahead and keep "warning " the pagans and unbelievers if you must. This is your choice. It's not your duty though.

Ezekiel 3:18
If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand.

 

[Strong in Him]

losing your life for a cause does not validate the cause.

That's not what I said.
They felt that taking their own lives was the only solution, the only way out of a dreadful situation.
They were gay, their parents/religion/society didn't accept gay people. They would have been, at the very least, ostracised if they insisted on trying to live as gay people. In some cases, they could have been killed. If they pretended not to be gay - i.e lived a lie - they would make other people happy, but themselves miserable.

Supposing it was the other way around? Supposing you lived in a society where being gay was the norm and your parents/society not only felt that it was acceptable but expected it of you.
And supposing you had a choice - live as a heterosexual, be true to yourself but make others unhappy and maybe lose your life as a result? Or force yourself to live as a gay man, which would make everyone except yourself happy, and might guarantee your father's inheritance, etc?

Homosexuality is not a "cause".

 

[Benjamin Müller]

Go ahead and keep "warning " the pagans and unbelievers if you must. This is your choice. It's not your duty though. All this indignation amounts to in my view is gay opponents showing favoritism and partiality to sinners who are heterosexual. Which condemns one as a transgressor of the law. The insidious aspect is that people deceive themselves into believing their hatred and indignation is somehow righteous.

Opponents have made it clear that all sin and fall short of the glory of God, regardless of sexual preference. It seems homosexual sympathizers miss the point we are making. Sympathizers, to summarize the thread, state:


1.) Everyone is a sinner, therefore, it's irrelevant of the type of wedding you attend.

2.) Homosexuals are somehow above criticism and have been manifested into victims of unscientific biology, therefore we are suppose to be accept them; feel bad for them; and support them.

3.) Not doing so means we are ignorant and judgmental people, and showing favoritism.

There lies the crux of all arguments posted by homosexual sympathizers.

Opponents make it clear that:

1.) Marriage is a divine institution created by God between a man and woman, not man and man or woman and woman.
a.) Christians celebrate God's intended purpose of marriage.
b.) Homosexual marriages are against God's intended purpose, therefore, not a valid marriage, in the context of Christianity.
c.) Christianity is the only true religion, therefore the God of Israel, who is the only true God, dictates the definition of a marriage and that is the definition, to which we uphold.

2.) All sin and fall short of the glory of God, (no one has shown favoritism towards one sin or another; you have made a faulty assumption in this regard)
a.) The fact everyone sins is not an excuse or a license to continue living a sinful lifestyle. Nor is it an excuse to continue consorting with the world.
b.) We all are to overcome lusts, and by spreading the Gospel of Christ, we hope that others will heed God's call and also overcome their lusts. Therefore, we cannot support sin. Attending a gay wedding shows support, if not to the attendee, to the couple it certainly does.
c.) Christians are to be clear about their stance against homosexuality. To hide the truth is to deny Christ; because Christ IS Truth.
d.) Along with hidden sins, we are not aware of hidden repentance. A gay wedding does not exhibit repentance in any way, shape, or form.

3.) Christians are allowed to judge; we are not allowed to condemn.
a.) Christians are called-out-ones; we are to come out of the world and not accept its teachings and immoralities. We are therefore not to associate with those who openly or secretly rebel against God. Those who secretly rebel, we will know them by their fruits, and when we know someone acts contrary to God, we are not to have a relationship with them.


--

I don't understand, truly, why this thread is 12 pages long.

Simple question:

Would Christ attend a Gay Wedding?

Answer:

No.

Source:
God the Father
Jesus Christ
Holy Scripture
Sodom and Gomorrah


If Christ lives in you, then you certainly would know better and not compromise your faith--even your very soul--so as not to offend the world.

 

[Brihaha]

If Christ lives in you, then you certainly would know better and not compromise your faith--even your very soul--so as not to offend the world.


I do offend Christians by warning them. I'm not afraid to offend the world by offering my faith as testimony.

Ezekiel 3:18
If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand.

This is one reason I try to enter these conversations friend. In hopes one person may be warned and stop sabotaging themselves. Are not we all wicked and sinful? To play the favoritism game of sinners is to be sinful and break God's law. People try to veil the favoritism as righteous indignation but I doubt God is fooled as easily as we fool ourselves.

 

[Benjamin Müller]

The people in your AA meetings want to change; gay couples getting married do not want to change. That is the difference.

My favoritism is towards God's law, if that means marginalizing unrepentant people then I will.

Do you not understand that we're giving mercy and grace to the repentant and to those who are trying to overcome; but are distancing ourselves and making judgments to disassociate with the people who are unrepentant and have chosen to reject God? God lends mercy and grace to those who repent, but to those who don't they will be cast into hellfire. That is the way of God, therefore that is the way of Christians. Condemnation is God's perogative, but we certainly do not want to share in the condemnation, that's why we make the judgement not to consort with the unrepentant world.