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

[Lily of Valleys]

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

 

[JackRT]

"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."

This is key. I applaud the couple.

 

[RaymondG]

I would need to know how the church found out that the couple supported same sex marriage. It is shown that the Preach knew about them being in the wedding party...so this was not the problem.

Seems to me that this is a non-issue is unneeded information was given. Sometimes it is wiser to keep our mouths closed.

I support everyone's right to serve the devil.....but this is not something I would carelessly, or needlessly say in churches. What would be the gained from that? How, when and why was this announcement made?

 

[thecolorsblend]

especially when we have been loyal and valued members of this congregation for 10 years

I find this bit rather telling. Does the length of their membership gain them some special consideration here?

Good on the minister for cancelling. He's making the right choice.

The beauty of it is that now the couple can find a minister who better aligns with their viewpoints. They should be thanking him.

 

[Winken]

To "support" "their" decision? I think you need to reword that.

 

[Paidiske]

I'm trying (and failing) to imagine that I would cancel a couple's wedding because one of them had posted an opinion on Facebook with which I or the church disagreed.

There are reasons I'd cancel a wedding, yes, but to me this doesn't meet that threshold.

I might not agree with the couple, but I think the reaction is disproportionate.

 

[com7fy8]

after the bride-to-be declared on Facebook that she supported same-sex marriage

When did she make this declaration?

In case she did it after getting counseling and arranging to be pronounced, she could have well known she was challenging the church minister. And how did he find out, anyway, that she made the statement? If she made it after she had gotten a lot of attention with church members, then surely ones could have felt they needed to say something.

So, for how long has she been very openly making her views known? How about during the pre-marital counseling? Did she say anything so clear, then? Or, was this all mainly after the counseling sessions? I mean, that she openly made her views known; I do not mean whatever she has felt and believed in private.

 

[football5680]

I would support the minister. Their views put them outside the Church so he shouldn't continue with this charade when they clearly don't care about what God has said.

 

[com7fy8]

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,"

So, he has talked personally with her, plus this subject has been dealt with during sermons at their church. So, she knew this, even before going for premarital counseling. And from how he writes this, it seems to me that only after the counseling has she made a point of making her views public by means of Facebook.

It is not obvious that she has for some time made a point of saying she stands against the views of the pastor and his church. The context seems to mean she made her statement only after the counseling session . . . after, possibly, first getting him to commit to the wedding . . . but then ambushing him with her anti-church statement. In case she did this, this is not straightforward.

So, is there any clear statement about when she first came out in an obvious public way, about her views?

And . . . why would she want to be pronounced by ones she considers to be illegitimate? She had opportunity to hear sermons, also, even before going to counseling and her claim to want to be pronounced by the minister. But if she considers him to be so illegitimate, that she has so spoken against him and his church, why would she want him to pronounce her?

I see it is possible she has done this, in order to cause an issue, and she does not even really respect that pastor and church. And it seems possible she is not interested in making sure she is pronounced by someone she deeply trusts and respects. Or, I would think she would already have been seeking and finding whoever she does accept, for pronouncing her.

I would go to a church which I consider to be legitimate with a pastor whom I honor and trust. So, is she being honest with herself?

 

[com7fy8]

"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.

This seems to indicate that she made her statement only after she had been in the premarital counseling. If she had made herself so known before the counseling, I would think he simply would have not even started to commit to arranging to pronounce her . . . unless he hoped to help her during the sessions so then he could in good conscience go on with the couple to pronouncement.

 

[com7fy8]

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,"

Says who? Anyone can say they have been valuable in a church or a relationship. But we see from the number of broken marriages, how ones do not always get the ratings of others, which they might give to their own selves.

Also, acting like a great person, while you hide what is wrong, does not mean you are a great person. Hiding wrong things is not great and is not what valuable examples of a church do. We need to tell our children the truth about right from wrong; so it is not valuable to not tell them what they need to know so they do not get into wrong things.

God is trusting us with our children. We must not betray His trust. It is not valuable to betray God's trust.

And she says they have been "loyal". Have they been loyal to how the church has upheld God's word about moral teachings? Her own say-so does not make it so.

 

[RaymondG]

I would support the minister. Their views put them outside the Church so he shouldn't continue with this charade when they clearly don't care about what God has said.

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

 

[com7fy8]

"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?

I can see he was not assuming, but he prayed and might have accepted them in counseling, with the hope of ministering for them to receive correction. I understand that premarital counseling does not assume the couple will be found suitable to pronounce.

So, may be she was the one doing the assuming > that if she went for counseling she could expect him to approve her. But I understand that premarital counseling does not guarantee automatic approval, but it can be used to test how the couple really is, including to make sure they are saved, to start with, and then also if they are obeying God's word and if they belong together in holy matrimony. The pastor needs, then, to pray for how God enlightens him and guides him in this, according to all God our Heavenly Father knows.

I now would say holy matrimony is humble matrimony, before which we submit ourselves to God and His minister, in order to be tested and evaluated . . . not to move with an attitude of entitlement while we accuse others of assuming.

 

[Paidiske]

I think, in Australia, it would not be usual to go to marriage preparation thinking that this was a test that might be passed or failed.

(Ie. most people would not come with the assumption that the minister is deciding "Is it right for me to marry you?" That decision would be made at the initial approach, or first interview at the latest, unless something extraordinary were to emerge; and marriage preparation would proceed on the assumption that the marriage will take place unless the couple call it off).

 

[PloverWing]

I am astounded by the level of theological conformity that this pastor expects from his parishioners, and from members of the wedding party who are (I assume) not even members of his church. For example he says: "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." I would never assume that a pastor presiding at a wedding was endorsing every theological opinion held by the couple or by members of the wedding party.

This is not like the bakers who get in trouble over wedding cakes. The couple did not ask the pastor to participate in any way in a same-sex wedding. The couple did not ask the pastor to bless any of the relationships that their friends might be in. The couple only asked the pastor to preside at their own, traditional, man-and-woman wedding. As long as the couple have an acceptable view of the marriage that they themselves are entering into, I don't see why the pastor should object to marrying them.

 

[com7fy8]

"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."

In other words, she does not agree with the teachings of her church, because the church teaches morals which apply to all humans, but she is saying they do not have the right to say what goes for all people. So, yes she did not agree with what the church teaches . . . while she claims they did agree.

Also, again > we need to teach our children what is right. And what is right applies to all humans. And what God gives for our standards is for the good of all people. So, if we discriminate by saying certain people are excused from needing the forgiveness of Jesus on the cross, then we are discriminating against the wrong people whom we excuse. And so, we are guilty of unforgiveness, by not encouraging certain wrong people to receive the forgiveness they so need, right while we expect others to be blessed with God's forgiveness.

So, in case she is excusing certain wrong people, instead of helping them to seek the forgiveness of Jesus on the cross, she is not really their friend.

 

[com7fy8]

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

It seems possible that she did not plainly bring out her views until she had been in counseling. And so, then was when the pastor had to make his stand. And when wrong people get no for an answer . . . they can misrepresent things. It looks like she could be doing that, if the quotes of her are accurate.

It does not look like she is praying for and helping her gay acquaintances to seek forgiveness from Jesus on the cross. So, in case she has been discriminating against gays in such a manner, she is not loyal to the teaching of that church, I would say, if that church teaches that all people of all sorts of sins need forgiveness and Jesus loves us all and died with hope for any and all of us to be forgiven and saved.

"For He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." (1 John 2:2)

 

[Radagast]

I think, in Australia, it would not be usual to go to marriage preparation thinking that this was a test that might be passed or failed.

Among conservative churches in Australia, there would very definitely be a requirement that the couple would share the minister's theology of marriage, and that theology of marriage would be referred to extensively during the service.

 

[com7fy8]

It is shown that the Preach knew about them being in the wedding party...so this was not the problem.

Well . . . when did this come to his attention?

"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.

Possibly, he did not know until the "proceedings" started. And why did she even tell him? Why would she single gays out for special attention? If she did, then it is possible he accepted the couple for premarital counseling so he could talk with them and offer them correction and evaluate if they really considered him to be legitimate to be ministering to them. If they don't consider his ministry to be legitimate, including his ministering of his church's stand about same-sex marriage, then why would he pronounce people who are illegitimating him? Why would she expect him to?

 

[com7fy8]

God said to Forgive 7x7 times. Clearly the minister doesnt care about that.

I offer that Jesus means to forgive someone who admits he or she is wrong and wants forgiveness. This is a case in which people are promoting what is wrong and not seeking forgiveness. The couple can correct their behavior and honor the church and pastor and God's word, or else they are not seeking forgiveness, and they are helping to discriminate against gays getting forgiveness. So, yes the minister does care, but does the couple care?

 

[Paidiske]

Among conservative churches in Australia, there would very definitely be a requirement that the couple would share the minister's theology of marriage, and that theology of marriage would be referred to extensively during the service.

I agree (definitely seen the second bit a fair bit)!

What I mean, though, is that usually - in my experience - you'd have an initial discussion which would scope out the various things that need checking (legal and spiritual) and set a date and so forth, and from there, (as I said, extraordinary matters aside), things would proceed without the couple feeling that they are being scrutinised for their suitability to marry. Often marriage preparation isn't even done with the person who will conduct the wedding but with a lay person or outside service.