Last week, I wrote that in
response to gay marriage issues I would, as of this summer, stop performing
weddings in which I serve as an agent of the state, performing these weddings
under the civil authority of the state.
Apparently, this was a
controversial blog. On any given week, a
few folks will un-subscribe to my newsletter.
Those un-subscription numbers went up about 300% last week; that, in
spite of my asking for folks to wait till this week and read this second
part. This week I want to address some
of the problems and objections that might occur based on my new approach. I will attempt to sum up my new position with
one sentence, “I am going to stop casting my pearls before swine, especially in
wedding ceremonies.”
Objection #1
One of the possible problems of
this new approach is the lost opportunity to minister to seekers. When I was studying for ministry, I was
taught that weddings and funerals for people who are not a part of the church
is a great evangelistic and ministry opportunity. Honestly, how often does that really
happen? I have done many weddings for
people with no church home in the hopes of being able to reach these
couples. After almost 30 years of
ministry, I have never had an occasion in which a couple, with whom I had no
prior relationship, connected with the church because we ministered to them in
a wedding. I fear that by performing
weddings in the hopes that people will someday decide to connect with the
church cheapens the holy and sacred, and we allow ourselves to be used and
manipulated by people who care nothing about God.
Objection #2
A second question that comes to
mind is, “If you require essentially two weddings, when can the couple have
sex?” At one level, the answer is, “Any
time they want to.” I am in no way able to prevent people from having sex. I think this is the wrong question to
ask. If asked by a couple, “When can we start
having sex? Can we start having sex
after we have the marriage license filled out by the state official, but before
the religious ceremony?” I will answer, “Are you saving yourselves as an act of
worship or legal distinction? Are you
remaining pure for the state, yourselves, each other, or your Lord?” To be frankly honest, the only sufficient and
effective motivation for sexual purity, before or during marriage, is our
commitment to Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. Real marriages are ordained by God and to His
glory; I will teach couples to be sexually pure their whole lives.
Objection #3
What if a couple only wants a
religious wedding? What if for reasons
of economics, family pressure, a disdain for government, or some other reason a
couple says they won’t have a state sanctioned marriage. I believe this reflects an unfortunate low
view of marriage. Let’s remember that we
believe that in the act of sex a couple becomes one flesh. This is not a metaphor or expression, but a
spiritual reality. In some way, that
physical union will be enjoyed or endured for eternity. This union is performed and consummated
before the God of Heaven. It is deeper,
stronger, and more profound than all the laws of all the nations of the world
today. Compared to the grandeur of
marriage, the U.S. Constitution is just old paper and old ink. In view of that
high and holy place, why would someone not be willing to be legally bound to
another person? If it were a matter of economics,
then it would appear that the couple doesn’t trust the God to whom they are
appealing for blessing to be able to provide for them. The only case or exception I could imagine is,
if the government, as part of its marriage requirement, also required an oath
of loyalty to Caesar or a prima nocturne type arrangement. I am convinced that a pre-request for a
spiritual commitment of marriage is the lower legal commitment.
Objection #4
Will this approach be a retreat
from the world and a move toward a fortress Christianity? We will be loosing our influence in
society. The battle for marriage is a
battle that the church must fight. I
absolutely agree that this is a battle the church must fight. I believe that what we see happening in the
physical world is an expression of a spiritual reality. I also believe that what has happened in the
states of Indiana and Arkansas is evidence of the condition of our nation. If this is primarily a spiritual battle, then
the battle needs to be fought first at the spiritual level. I believe this approach will begin to put holy
back into Holy Matrimony. If there is
not holiness in the marriages we conduct, and if we cheapen the institution of
marriage, we will not have a foundation from which to fight the battle in the
physical, governmental, or social realm.
And in view of the results in Indiana and Arkansas, how much influence
does the church have because it performs state sanctioned marriages?
Objection #5
What about the possibility of divorce? Does the approach require, that if a couple
has a secular and then sacred marriage and then decides to divorce, that the
church will need to develop a sacrament of divorce? I believe that divorce is more about the
presence of ungodliness than the legal standing. Jesus said that divorce was part of the
Mosaic Law because of hardness of heart, but never God’s intended plan. I have seen some of the couples I have
married later dissolve those marriages in divorce. In each of those cases, I see, in hindsight,
there was a deeply rooted problem coming into the marriage and there was a
notable lack of commitment to the Lord and the church. I don’t believe we will need a sacrament of
divorce; in fact, I believe we will see less divorce in the marriages the
church sanctions because those couples will be specifically seeking the Lord’s
blessing and will also be seeking Him in the difficulties of marriage. Let me also say, that in no way, does this
approach change any aspect of pre-marital counseling.
Objection #6
Will this really protect the
church from persecution? No, this is not
a guarantee that the church will not be persecuted; in fact, I believe
persecution is coming. But persecution
tends to require a church to really think about what it believes and helps it
define its understanding on critical issues.
I believe the issue of ‘gay marriage’ can do that for the church today
and my new approach is just one expression of how we can rethink our
understanding of marriage. My goal is to
have an understanding of marriage that is more in line with the mind and the
will of God.
Final thoughts:
I will still do weddings for
couples, but the bar for my accepting those weddings has been raised. The weddings I will perform will be sacred in
nature. That will, I hope, reflect the
joy of Heaven and the will of God. They will be weddings in the highest sense
of the word, but I will not do so as a representative of the state or as a
civil authority.
By the authority invested in me
as the author of this blog, I now pronounce that you may un-subscribe; though I
hope you won’t.
In the Cause of Christ
Charlie
No comments:
Post a Comment