Should a Christian attend a gay wedding ?

Aldebaran said:

I wouldn't attend the ceremony in the first place.

Click to expand...

That's a good way to avoid the suggestion you made.

Aldebaran said:

For the record, I choose not to go to crack houses or strip clubs as well. Am I avoiding any "suggestions" by not going to those places?

Click to expand...

Do you have suggestions for those who go to those places? Any tips on the proper response to said activities?

I did not even go to my professed Christian daughter's wedding to an admittedly secular husband. Some of my family attended. Some did not.

I recognize their marriage after the fact but
could not endorse it before the fact.

She later confessed to her brother (who chose not to attend) that she wished that she would have married a Christian.

Aldebaran said:

What do you believe Jesus would have done then (or would do today) if sinners invited Jesus to a strip club, or a crack house? Would He show up there? Maybe or maybe not, but then would He have started throwing dollar bills at the strippers and asked for a lap dance? If he went to the crack house, do you think He would be lighting up along with everyone else?

Click to expand...

No, of course not.
Going to a pub doesn't mean drinking/getting drunk like others. Going to the races doesn't mean you are gambling. Going to a football match doesn't make you a hooligan.

Aldebaran said:

In the same way, if He had been invited to a gay "wedding", do you believe He would be giving a speech and toasting the new "couple" and wishing them a happy "marriage" when in fact it's nothing more than a mockery of marriage?

Click to expand...

Going to a marriage service does not mean going to the reception and taking part in the speeches.

Aldebaran said:

Then what's the point of asking if anyone objects if they're just going to go ahead with it anyway?

Click to expand...

@public hermit is correct that the point of that part of the service was to allow any legal impediment to the marriage to be made known. It was not to allow anyone to air any disapproval or other personal objection. And, fwiw, it's generally not used now anyway.

That said, I think the question in the OP is too black and white. I don't believe that attending a wedding is, in itself, a statement of approval or a celebration; it is simply presence. That said, whatever one thinks of any particular marriage (and I've attended at least one where I would have preferred to fling myself down the aisle and beg the bride not to make such a hideous mistake), there is a deeply personal decision to make about how best to love the particular people concerned. That's going to depend on a much more complex and nuanced assessment of relationships, context, and the wider situation. I can see that there would be times it would be better not to go. There may be times when it is better to go. I think assuming that every situation can be treated as the same, with one flat answer to everything, is unhepfully simplistic and reductionist.

Carl Emerson said:

Do you think Dr. Gagnon is simplistic and reductionist ?

Click to expand...

I didn't watch the video in the OP, so I can't comment on his approach. However, my comment stands; it's not helpful, when dealing with the complex and multi-layered issues and relationships involved in decisions like this, to try to impose a flat, one-size-fits-all answer.

Carl Emerson said:

Yes, well said - that sums up a prevailing attitude towards what were the 'non-negotiable' in God's Word.

'Thou shalt' becomes subject to an analysis of the complexities and multi-layered issues around the matter.

'Thou shalt' becomes lost in 'will it offend' 'is it cool' 'is it PC' 'does it make sense in the modern culture' 'would it have majority approval' 'would it violate the image we want the Church to have' 'was it meant for a bygone age' 'would it be accepted by society' 'have we moved on'

The Sword of the Spirit ceases to cut cheese.

Click to expand...

I do not recall that Scripture ever said, thou shalt not be in the presence of someone who is doing something wrong. Just as well, or we'd all be hermits.

My concern is not what will offend, be cool, PC, have majority approval, or the like. My concern, as I consider the possibility of attending or not attending a gay wedding, is: how can I best convey a message of God's love to the people concerned? I am not convinced that rejection of relationship and ostracism are always the right answer, especially when I consider the way that actual gay people I know have often had to overcome a lifetime of Christians telling them they are worthless, condemned, disordered, or the like. "I value you enough to turn up to something that matters deeply to you," may be a more powerful witness to God's love, and the God-given potential of that person, than refusing to do so.

And it may not. It depends on the people concerned, their history, your relationship with them, and so on. But that has to be discerned on a case-by-case basis.

Carl Emerson said:

1 Corinthians 5:11
But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.

Click to expand...

The OP didn't stipulate that this was a believers' wedding, or a church wedding, for that matter.

Carl Emerson said:

1 Corinthians 5:11
But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.

Click to expand...

Would he have said that to Jesus?

There's a difference between what Paul was doing - seeking to maintain some order in an established congregation - and what Jesus was doing, which was bringing good news to people who did not know the kingdom of God. That might be one of the things that bears reflecting on in deciding whether or not to attend.

Christians are called out ones; we're not suppose to be part of the world, so whatever Paul was commanding concerning brethren stands for the world also.

Matt. 18:17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

According to Jewish Law [Acts 10:28] a Jew did not associate or eat with one who was a gentile or unclean. In Matthew 18:17, Christ is keeping this law. We are to regard abominable people as heathen or publicans; people of low character that the Jews did not consort with. Christ is confirming and even commanding here, that we are to shun these types of people as we shun the world. So shunning the world, is a commandment.

Even Christ kept this law while he was preaching, making only a few exceptions to those who would hear his word. In Acts 10 Christ was not changing the law that we are to associate with sorts of evil, but rather that whomever God calls clean, is clean. A gay wedding is not clean. The gentile who is being called, God has made or is making clean and we are not to be judgmental based on nationality in that regard. This was, in modern terminology, a call against xenophobia, but only for those whom God was calling into the church. Everyone else, if they did not hear the message, the apostles were to move on and shake the dust from their feet as a witness against them.

The prevailing issue that I see is that God called Christians to be intolerant towards all forms of evil, no exception; but Christians for the sake of maintaining relationships; diplomacy; other people's feelings, etc. are compromising with God's law and are being tolerant towards evil. This type of tolerance leads to future generations of evil. Mankind has failed to expunge evil the moment the seed was planted, and we have allowed it to grow and now we are entangled by it on every side. And because we never took a stand against it, God will take a stand against it. the Day of the Lord is darkness and not light.

Ezekiel 9:6 Utterly slay old and young men, maidens and little children and women; but do not come near anyone on whom is the mark; and begin at My sanctuary.” So they began with the elders who were before the temple.

Carl Emerson said:

Can we discuss this important topic.

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

Your considered comments most welcome.

Click to expand...

For a start, it's an oxymoron. To attend is to condone.

Carl Emerson said:

Did Peter cease to abide in the Love of Christ ? Was it unloving to proclaim consequences for their sin ?
Acts 5
a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and with his wife's knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” 5 When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. 6 The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.

7 After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you[a] sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.” 9 But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.

And Jesus - did he cease to love when he zealously drove the money lenders out of the temple with a whip of cords?
John 2:15
And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables.

Maybe we need to reflect on what is Love in circumstances when distain for God's ways is in our face and sin prevails.

Click to expand...

Am I Jesus? Am I an apostle? Do you have the authority to make a whip and drive out sinners?

I'm a poor sinner who will be judged, and so I depend wholly on divine grace. I am no one's judge. My calling is to love as Christ has loved us, to judge not lest I be judged by the measure I judge. If you or someone else decides they have the authority to judge and condemn, that's between them and God.

I think you're missing the point of what I said. I don't care who it is, I don't care their circumstances, I don't care what particular sins from which they need to be freed, my sole desire is for their best, and that is my prayer. For me, that's what Christ does for us and he's Lord, not me. I will leave to others who feel they have the authority to condemn and ostracize. I gave examples of all kinds of marriage situations for which I would hold that desire for their best, and I would explicitly say as much. I'm not approving of anyone's sin. And, I make no judgement of their status before God, which is where the judgments we make about others' sins always end up. That's not my business. I'm not God.

We all have to find out how to navigate this changing culture to the best of our ability, all of it prayerfully considered. I have done that, and I'm confident you have to. We have come to different conclusions. I recognize that people who care and are doing their level best can still disagree over matters of importance. I'm all for mutual forbearance on this issue, but I also know people have strong feelings about it.