Last week I was interviewed by 90.9 KCBI (DFW area radio station) for their Christian News Weekly program that airs every Saturday at both 6:30 am and 6:30 pm. The interview came about because of an article in the Southern Baptist Texan a couple weeks earlier. The article and interview focus on issues related to homosexuality and how the church can address them. The audio from the interview is available here on KCBI’s website (The audio should be available through Friday, Nov 18. My interview begins about one-third of the way into the audio.), and the article in the Texan is available here. I hope you find these resources helpful.
Tag: Church
Church to Vote on Continuing Heterosexual Marriage Ceremonies
A church in Raleigh, NC, is gearing up for a vote on November 20 to decide if it will stop holding “state-sanctioned marriages” on their property. According to an article in Raleigh’s News & Observer, the deacon council at Pullen Memorial Baptist Church drafted a marriage equality statement in response to pastor Nancy Petty’s conscientious objection to endorsing marriages involving a state license for heterosexual couples while the state forbids same-sex marriage. Brooks Wicker, the co-chair of the deacon council stated,
For us, it’s very much a civil rights issue. It’s in keeping with our tradition of trying to live into the gospel, treating everyone justly and fairly.
On Nov 20, the congregation will hold a vote to determine the future of marriage ceremonies at the church. While this may seem unusual, Pullen Memorial is no stranger to the unusual in Baptist life. The church began embracing the “social gospel” and ecumenism in the 1930’s. In 1950, Harry Emerson Fosdick delivered the dedication sermon for their new sanctuary. In 1992, the church endorsed “unqualified acceptance” of gay and lesbian members. This move ultimately led to their ouster from the Raleigh Baptist Association, Baptist State Convention of NC, and Southern Baptist Convention.
Now the church stands on the cusp of eliminating marriage ceremonies for the foreseeable future from their practice. Petty, a self-professed lesbian, told the congregation that endorsing state-sanctioned marriages for heterosexuals was a burden on her conscience, and the church responded by bringing it up for a vote.
The real question here is whether or not God gets a vote in this matter. Wicker noted that he believed it was in keeping with the church’s tradition of living “into the gospel,” but I believe he has the direction wrong. It appears that “living into the gospel” is a way of adding cultural biases to the gospel. He sees gay-marriage as a civil right that needs to be affirmed by the gospel and that our lives change the gospel. However, Scripture suggests that we need the gospel to live in us and allow it to change us. Rather than living into the gospel, I want the gospel to live in me.
So what should we make of this vote? I think it is fairly clear from their history and current trajectory that Pullen Memorial will vote to cease all marriages until same-sex marriage is legalized by the state of NC. The unfortunate part of the vote is that a church will most likely vote contrary to Scripture. From the institution of the first marriage in Genesis 2, God has made it clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. In Genesis 2:22–24, we read:
The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
Throughout the rest of Scripture, every reference to marriage is always between a man and a woman. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, homosexual activity is clearly condemned (called an abomination), and that condemnation is repeated in Romans 1:24–32 and 1 Corinthians 6:9–11. Scripture makes it very clear that homosexual activity is against nature and against God’s intended design. Attempting to dignify it by placing the label of “marriage” on it simply flies in the face of what God intended for marriage as well.
So will God get a vote at Pullen Memorial? Let’s think about this—theology is not governed by democracy. Majority vote does not decide what truth is. God gets the only vote that matters, and he has already cast the deciding vote on this issue. Marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman. It is designed to last a lifetime. No church vote can change that. If Pullen Memorial wants to be on the side of God, they will change their stand on homosexual marriage. If they don’t, then they aren’t really attempting to be a church in submission to Christ and his Word. They might as well change their name to Pullen Memorial Social Club.
_________________________
Josh Shaffer, “Church puts civil marriage rites to vote,” News & Observer, November 11, 2011.
I would like to thank my friend, Randy Mann, for bringing this article to my attention. Check out his website at www.randymann.net.
Expiration Dates on Marriage Licenses
ABC News reported that Mexico City lawmakers are proposing legislation that would allow couples to set an “expiration date” for their marriage licenses. Rather than making a commitment for life, the new marriage licenses would allow newlyweds to determine if they want to commit to simply two years and evaluate any extensions after that.
Leonoel Luna, the official who authored the proposed legislation stated:
The proposal is, when the two-year period is up, if the relationship is not stable or harmonious, the contract simply ends. You wouldn’t have to go through the torturous process of divorce.
In Luna’ defense, he recognizes that the process of divorce is long, difficult, and painful. There is plenty of collateral damage that comes from divorce, and I believe he is probably being sincere in his desire to prevent such pain. However, he has a completely wrong understanding of marriage. Rather than viewing marriage as a covenant, he sees marriage as a contract.
This current proposal sounds much like a sports contract. Right now we are in the throes of the World Series, and last night’s game had plenty of commentary about where different players had played. In fact, one player started the season for the Rangers but is now on the roster of the Cardinals. When a player signs a contract, he has terms for pay and length of contract. If things don’t work out, the team can simply refuse to re-sign the player. The contract ends, and both parties move on.
Marriage is not supposed to be that way. Throughout Scripture we see that marriage is described as a covenant through explicit statements (Prov 2:16–17; Mal 2:14) and comparisons to the covenant between God and his people and Christ and the church (Isa 54:4–8; Jer 3:14; Hosea 1:1–3:5; Eph 5:22–33; Rev 21:9). The covenantal model of marriage depicts marriage as a creation ordinance given to all people that creates a permanent bond between a man, woman, and God. Covenants cannot be broken arbitrarily at the whim of the parties involved.
The contractual model of marriage espoused by this legislator makes marriage nothing more than a legal transaction between two individuals for mutual benefit. In a contract, once one person no longer receives the agreed upon benefit, the contract can be broken. The reason this model does not work in marriage is because it bases the security of marriage on the ability of sinners not to sin. Theoretically, a “partner” in the contract would have an escape clause once he/she is wronged. In marriage, that probably happens weekly—if not daily.
Some people may respond with the thought. “This is just the world acting like the world.” Unfortunately, many people in our churches have the same understanding of marriage. They consider marriage to be a contract ruled by the civil laws of the day. Once they feel wronged, they begin looking for a way out. This is evidenced by Barna’s research that the rate of divorce among self-identified born-again individuals is the same as that of American society at large.
The solution to the divorce problem in our culture is not temporary marriage licenses. Instead, the solution is seeing marriage the way God sees it—permanent, covenantal, and sanctifying. Unfortunately, many both in the church and outside are not convinced. Therefore, we need to start by proclaiming God’s design from marriage in our churches. Once we start to look different from the world, then we may earn a hearing in our culture.
_________________________
Christina Ng, “Mexico City Considers Temporary Marriage Licenses,” ABC News, September 30, 2011.
The Barna Group, “New Marriage and Divorce Statistics Released,” March 31, 2008.
Should a Pastor Perform a Wedding for Unbelievers?
About six months ago, one of my students was actively pursuing a ministry position after graduating from seminary. During his search, a friend sent him a link to a new “ministry” that provided ministerial wedding services indiscriminately to anyone willing to pay the fee. They had a slick website and a pledge to “make your wedding personal” despite never meeting the minister until a few weeks before the nuptials. For me, this raised the question of whether or not a pastor should perform weddings with little or no concern for the spiritual lives of the couple.
For most ministers I know, the question of performing a wedding ceremony between a believer and an unbeliever is a non-starter. We quickly jump to 1 Cor 7:39 and 2 Cor 6:14–15. These verses make it clear that believers are instructed not to marry unbelievers. However, there are no biblical instructions regarding two unbelievers marrying. In fact, the assumption is that if believers are only marrying other believers, then unbelievers will be marrying unbelievers. That leaves us with the question of whether or not a Christian pastor should perform the wedding ceremony for two unbelievers.
Before we can answer that question, we first need to address the nature of marriage. While there are some (e.g., Catholics) who argue that marriage is a church ordinance (or sacrament), we must acknowledge that marriage was instituted prior to the church (Gen 2). There are also those who argue that marriage is a state ordinance (e.g., most secularists). However, there was no government in the Garden of Eden either. Instead, marriage is a creation ordinance given to all mankind as a gift. Russell Moore writes, “Marriage though, unlike baptism and the Lord’s table, is a creation ordinance, given to all people (Gen 2:23-24). It is good for unbelievers to marry rather than to live in immorality. It’s good for them, for their children, and for society as a whole.” There are a host of benefits to society that come from marriage—economic development from family-owned businesses, social stability through the family unit, and care for the young by parents.
If marriage is a creation ordinance and it is good for unbelievers to marry one another, then should a pastor perform a wedding between two unbelievers? My answer to that question is a resounding “No.” Let me explain.
First, a pastor is not a “lone ranger” exercising his ecclesiastical duties apart from the authority of the local church. When a pastor performs a wedding ceremony, he is placing his stamp of approval (and that of the church) on the marriage relationship. However, the church has no business giving its blessing to a marriage between unbelievers because there is no mechanism to hold them accountable. Moore states, “For unbelievers the church has no right to hold a couple to their vows through church discipline. They are not, after all, members of the church. A church that isn’t able to hold a couple to their vows (through discipleship and discipline) as witnesses to the covenant made (through discipleship and discipline) has no right to solemnize these vows in the first place. What would the church do if the unbelieving non-members were to break these vows?”
Second, Christian marriage is a depiction of the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5:22–33). A pastor’s intention in performing a ceremony should be to direct the couple and those witnessing the ceremony to understand that biblical picture. However, a marriage between two unbelievers lacks the key element to make that picture complete—a relationship with Christ. Without that relationship, a husband and wife have no desire to honor God with their marriage. Thus, the pastor should have no interest in blessing a marriage that sets out from the beginning with no intention to recognize God’s design for marriage.
Third, while proclaiming the gospel is appropriate (and necessary in my view) during a wedding ceremony, it should not be the goal of a ceremony to proclaim the gospel to the bride and groom. The best gospel proclamation in a wedding is the living testimony of the couple as they depict the Christ-church relationship. The pastor puts Scripture and words to that picture to explain it. Moore aptly describes the faulty view of performing weddings as evangelism:
Almost every pastor I’ve ever heard who performs weddings indiscriminately appeals to the evangelistic potential. Every community has the “wedding chaplain” pastor who will marry anyone. He is rarely the soul-winning firebrand of the community. As a matter of fact (though I’m sure there are exceptions), I’ve not once met an unbelieving couple who were won to Christ by a pastor who was willing to marry them regardless of their belief in Christ. I know of several couples, though, who came to Christ because a faithful pastor lovingly told them no, and told them why.
I believe that many pastors who perform such ceremonies are more concerned with not offending others than they are with seeing God’s design for marriage upheld. If two unbelievers want to get married, send them to a justice of the peace or someone else authorized to sanction a marriage. Moore concludes his admonition to ministers with the following:
For many young ministers, this question comes right down to a question of courage. If you’re not able, at the beginning of your ministry, to turn down family members and friends who expect you to act as a wedding chaplain for them, then how are you going to turn down unbelievers who want to [be] baptized? How are you going to defy the armies of antichrist, should it come to that? The gospel minister is made of sterner stuff than what many of us are accustomed to seeing. Refusing to place your ecclesial imprimatur on a Christless marriage is among the least dangerous things a minister will ever be called to do.
I agree with Russell Moore on this one. Let’s avoid performing such marriages, even when it is family members who ask. Placing our “blessing” on a marriage should be reserved for those marriages that will reflect the true nature of marriage and depict the Christ-church relationship. In fact, I would say there are even times when we should say “no” to believers who have the wrong intentions for marriage.
_________________________
Russell Moore, “Should a Minister Officiate at the Weddings of Unbelievers,” September 11, 2008. Moore’s article from three years ago helped to solidify my position on this question. I am greatly indebted to him for his brief, yet substantive thoughts on the issue.
Should a Pastor Perform a Wedding for a Cohabiting Couple?
There is a growing trend in contemporary American society related to living together before getting married. According to the 2010 census data from the US Census Bureau, there were 7.529 million opposite sex unmarried couple households.[1] The National Marriage Project based at the University of Virginia notes:
Between 1960 and 2009, the number of cohabiting couples in the United States increased more than fifteenfold. About a quarter of unmarried women age 25 to 39 are currently living with a partner, and an additional quarter have lived with a partner at some time in the past. More than 60 percent of first marriages are now preceded by living together, compared to virtually none 50 years ago. For many, cohabitation is a prelude to marriage. For others, it is simply better than living alone. For a small but growing number, it is considered an alternative to marriage.[2]
As a seminary professor who teaches a class on marriage and family, I try to prepare my students for that time in their ministry when someone asks them to perform a wedding ceremony. There are a number of questions we need to ask ourselves before agreeing to be a part of the ceremony. In fact, LifeWay Research released the results of a recent survey they performed on just this issue. The summary article can be found at Baptist Press and LifeWay’s Facts and Trends Online. The results are interesting and a little frightening.
The lead stat for the article relates to cohabitation before marriage. The study notes:
The survey of 1,000 randomly selected Protestant pastors found that a majority (58 percent) will perform weddings for couples they know are living together. Nearly a third (31 percent) will not, and 10 percent are not sure.
When it comes to cohabitating couples, pastors who consider themselves mainline are more likely to perform weddings then those who consider themselves evangelical.
In response to the question, “When asked to do so, will you perform a marriage ceremony for a couple whom you know is living together?” 68 percent of mainline pastors say yes compared with 57 percent of evangelicals. Twenty-four percent of mainline pastors and 34 percent of evangelicals say no.
A minister’s level of education also reveals differences in pastors’ willingness to perform marriage ceremonies for couples who are living together.
A full 62 percent of pastors with at least a master’s degree will marry cohabitating couples while only 52 percent of those with a bachelor’s degree or less will perform weddings for couples living together before marriage. Twenty-nine percent of pastors with at least a master’s degree will not perform such ceremonies compared with 36 percent of those with a bachelor’s degree or less.
To me, this statistic about the willingness of pastors to perform weddings for couples they know to be cohabiting is disturbing. If we set aside the biblical material that relates to cohabitation and just look at the sociological data, pastors should be reticent to perform such marriages.
The National Marriage Project notes that cohabitation is more common among those of lower educational levels, lower income levels, the less religious, “those who have been divorced, and those who have experienced parental divorce, fatherlessness, or high levels of marital discord during childhood.”[3] After noting all these demographic details, National Marriage Project states:
The belief that living together before marriage is a useful way “to find out whether you really get along,” and thus avoid a bad marriage and an eventual divorce, is now widespread among young people. But the available data on the effects of cohabitation fail to confirm this belief. In fact, a substantial body of evidence indicates that those who live together before marriage are more likely to break up after marriage.[4]
Even though the authors acknowledge that the evidence is somewhat controversial, Wilcox concludes, “What can be said for certain is that no research from the United States has yet been found that those who cohabit before marriage have stronger marriages than those who do not.”[5]
So why would a pastor perform a marriage for a cohabiting couple when the sociological evidence says that such couple are more likely to get divorced? I think the answer is societal pressure and a desire not to offend. Certainly Scripture is clear in its condemnation of fornication (a KJV-style word for a pre-marital sexual relationship). Fornication and fornicators (as well as adulterers) are described as evil, subject to judgment, and not heirs of the kingdom of God (Matt 15:19; Acts 15:20, 29; 1 Cor 6:9; Heb 13:4).
What should one do when encountering this situation? Here are a few suggestions. First, remember that cohabitation is not the unpardonable sin. After Paul gives a vice list in 1 Cor 6:9–10 that says certain people, including fornicators and adulterers, will not inherit the kingdom of God, he states, “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11). We need to work with these couples to help them confess and repent of this sin. Ideally, this confession and repentance should have a public element to it within the church. This does not necessarily mean that they air their dirty laundry before the church on Sunday morning, but it should at least include their families and those in their circle of influence who are aware of the situation. Depending on the church, it may also include the entire church body.
Second, I believe separation from the cohabiting relationship is in order prior to marriage. This involves all aspects of the relationship. If it means a woman moves back home with her parents, or a man moves in with some friends for a period of a few months, then so be it. If the couple is not willing to do this for the remainder of the time leading up to the marriage, then they are not interested in honoring God with their marriage.
Third, assuming that the couple has cooperated in the first two points, I believe the pastor must still examine his own convictions about marriage to determine whether or not he desires to place his “stamp of approval” on the wedding by performing the ceremony.
I believe our culture has become too focused on the wedding ceremony, and some pastors are fearful that they might alienate an influential family in the church if they do not fulfill the daughter’s wish for a “dream wedding.” Marriage is much more than a ceremony. It is a lifetime covenant established by God (Gen 2:22–24). It is time we focus on the marriage and not the ceremony, but the decision to perform the wedding is part of that process.
[1] U.S. Census Bureau, “America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2010,” Table UC3. http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2010.html. These couples self-identified as unmarried partners.
[2] W. Bradford Wilcox, ed., “When Marriage Disappears: The New Middle America,” The State of Our Unions: Marriage in America 2010, 76. http://www.virginia.edu/marriageproject/pdfs/Union_11_12_10.pdf.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid., 76–77.
[5] Ibid., 77.
Ethics as Worship 