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

[Paidiske]

But if you were told that the couple you were about to marry supports same sex marriages would you still officiate knowing that this might be viewed that you the minister also support same sex marriages

That alone would not be enough reason for me to refuse to officiate.

I would not think that anyone would conclude from that, that I also support same-sex marriage (I think most people just assume that clergy don't, to be honest; or else know that they can't assume someone's position from such flimsy evidence).

 

[Lily of Valleys]

Love does not mean we allow everything because of love
And it certainly does not mean we join others in doing what is against GOD because of love

Yes, I have seen the word "love" overly misused by many. It's worthwhile trying to understand what biblical "love" actually means:

does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth (1 Corinthians 13:6 NKJV)

Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. (Romans 12:9 NKJV)

 

[hedrick]

Yes you're right

But if you were told that the couple you were about to marry supports same sex marriages would you still officiate knowing that this might be viewed that you the minister also support same sex marriages

Marrying someone doesn't imply that you agree with them on everything. That wasn't the problem. The problem was that the Church has doctrinal standards covering marriage, and the couple didn't accept them.

 

[miknik5]

That alone would not be enough reason for me to refuse to officiate.

I would not think that anyone would conclude from that, that I also support same-sex marriage (I think most people just assume that clergy don't, to be honest; or else know that they can't assume someone's position from such flimsy evidence).

I assume that yes. Clergy do not accept same sex marriage


And I assumed that this preacher is very uncomfortable being the overseer of his church officiating a wedding for a couple of their church who openly and publicly (for whatever reason) announces that their viewpoint is not in line with the church they belong to and the priest who had planned to marry them

 

[JackRT]

Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ. Did he miss the boat on a very important moral teaching?

He also missed the boat on slavery.

 

[hedrick]

I assume that yes. Clergy do not accept same sex marriage

It's not safe to make assumptions about people's views. Some clergy officiate in same sex marriage. Others (e.g. many Catholics) accept it but aren't allowed to officiate. Not in traditionalist Presbyterian churches, of course.

 

[ken777]

It's because GOD's original design for a union was a man and a woman

True, but it is deeper than that. In symbolic form, the woman was taken from man's side, even as Jesus' side was pierced and He died for the Church. The man-woman relationship represents the union of Christ and the Church. That is the mystery Paul explained in Ephesians 5:31-32.

The centrality of this doctrine is why many people in the church, or in business, are unable to become involved in same sex marriage.

 

[ken777]

He also missed the boat on slavery.

Don't want to derail the thread, but no Paul didn't as a close study of Philemon shows. Nor did he miss the boat on homosexual acts.

 

[miknik5]

True, but it is deeper than that. In symbolic form, the woman was taken from man's side, even as Jesus' side was pierced and He died for the Church. The man-woman relationship represents the union of Christ and the Church. That is the mystery Paul explained in Ephesians 5:31-32.

The centrality of this doctrine is why many people in the church, or in business, are unable to become involved in same sex marriage.

Are all in the body?

 

[miknik5]

It's not safe to make assumptions about people's views. Some clergy officiate in same sex marriage. Others (e.g. many Catholics) accept it but aren't allowed to officiate. Not in traditionalist Presbyterian churches, of course.

I'm sorry to hear that

 

[miknik5]

Marrying someone doesn't imply that you agree with them on everything. That wasn't the problem. The problem was that the Church has doctrinal standards covering marriage, and the couple didn't accept them.

Therefore the priest had the right to make a decision for the sake of the body of believers who are supposed to be of one mind

 

[miknik5]

True, but it is deeper than that. In symbolic form, the woman was taken from man's side, even as Jesus' side was pierced and He died for the Church. The man-woman relationship represents the union of Christ and the Church. That is the mystery Paul explained in Ephesians 5:31-32.

The centrality of this doctrine is why many people in the church, or in business, are unable to become involved in same sex marriage.

Not all are born again of HIS SPIRIT


And with your wording this implies that we can join ourselves with unbelievers and do what should not be done

And therefore 1 Corinthians 6 is also allowed

But it is not true this "mystery" which you are trying to imply. Because what was taken out of Adams side is being put back into the ONE BODY of CHRIST


Yet not all are IN CHRIST

And we know Paul understood and only directed those inside THE BODY

Not those outside THE BODY

The mystery is that the CHURCH is THE BODY of CHRIST and if the BODY of Christ they are supposed to live and correct when needed those in error

Not adopt the error within the BODY so that there is no distinction between believer and unbeliever

 

[redleghunter]

I do think the Acts list is interesting. No idolatry is pretty obvious; no sexual immorality unsurprising given the context. But why no blood or strangled animals but no other food or purity provisions? It might be that this was aimed at the bare minimum necessary for table fellowship to be acceptable to all, and that was thought to be important enough to enforce rules around it. But it is interesting.

Hi Paidiske!

You ask valid and good questions.

I believe the Council of Jerusalem considered mainly a Gentile audience as Jews who were Christians knew the Law and would not have to be "preached to."

Meaning the blood is from the commands given to Noah which the Council of apostles saw as binding on all humanity. The idolatry as you note has applied since Genesis. The strangled animals is most likely linked to the pagan sacrifices and would specifically address the pagan culture of the Greeks and Romans. Strangled animals keep the blood intact in the meat. It was a way to tell Gentiles that properly butchered meat would not contain the blood one should be concerned with.

 

[miknik5]

The man who had his father's wife was a man joining himself to a woman

Yet those not actively a part of this sin were allowing this sin to continue

Why did Paul tell the believing body (who were not actively taking part in this sin) to remove the man?

Should this priest accommodate one at the expense of confusing the whole BODY?

The priest might be an elder and strong in his faith but he still is responsible to the BODY. And if he continued to go forward and officiate in the wedding of one who is against the church's belief, he does run the risk of causing a weaker brother/sister to become confused and also adopt a viewpoint which is against the BODY

Because looking to their overseer, seeing that either he accepts or doesn't think it important (as he mentioned in his letter) does cause confusion

And is far from what he wants
He serves the whole BODY

And in his decision, his concern was for the whole flock, babies who look to him as the one who is stronger and knowledgeable in the affairs of THE CHURCH

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The couple should try to read Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, and 1 Corinthians 5:9-13.

 

[redleghunter]

The PCUSA understands confessional differently. We consider our theology a living tradition, and see confessions as having the dual role of telling the world what we believe and providing guidance for members. Since ours is a living tradition, we expect to continue issuing confessions.

What happens when a new confession is in tension with an older confession? What supreme transcendent standard do you use to test the teachings in tension?

 

[redleghunter]

I'm not aware of the "ifs" you speak of. Does your bible also say to love your enemies, "IF" they repent first as well? If so, I need to know the version....yours seem to have an easier way to heaven.

I'm not sure about your question, but it seems to me that she wasn't given an opportunity to repent.....the post was discovered, meetings were had, and the cancellations were sent in a letter.

Mark 1:15 clearly says "repent and believe."

 

[Radagast]

What happens when a new confession is in tension with an older confession? What supreme transcendent standard do you use to test the teachings in tension?

I can't speak for Hedrick and the PCUSA, but for conservative Presbyterian groups, the confessions are subordinate to the Bible. See here.

 

[redleghunter]

And the thread deviates so far off course cause the fundies come out to get bent out of shape. How unsurprising.

What's a fundie?

You do know by making the above statement you deviate from the subject of the thread.

 

[redleghunter]

I can't speak for Hedrick and the PCUSA, but for conservative Presbyterian groups, the confessions are subordinate to the Bible. See here.

Indeed.