| Re: Bad medicine for marriage (pub. Nov. 28, 2011) |
| Written by The Presbyterian Outlook | ||||||
| Sunday, 22 January 2012 23:00 | ||||||
|
As Jack Haberer noted in his editorial of November 28, 2011, the Covenant Network of Presbyterians Board of Directors supports the efforts of several presbyteries to address the complex issue of same-gender marriage in a balanced way, by proposing an authoritative interpretation (AI). Haberer criticizes this approach as divisive. We respectfully disagree. Marriage is not a settled matter in church or society. Our goal is to avoid forcing one “all or nothing” view on the PC(USA) when there is such great diversity of conviction. In some congregations in the states that have legalized same-gender marriage, some latitude is urgently needed for ministers and sessions to respond to the pastoral needs of their own members. This proposed AI affords some breathing space for such ministers and sessions, while at the same time reaffirming the freedom of ministers and sessions to say no to any request for the church’s involvement in a marriage ceremony. The fact that this AI is a middle-ground measure has been widely recognized, and the Covenant Network Board has received many comments from conservative friends who appreciate the fact that we are not pressing toward a change in constitutional language. This AI, rather than fomenting further conflict within the church at this fragile time, will, we believe, provide some release of pressure as we continue to work toward mutual forbearance on this and other matters of conscience on which Presbyterians differ. Mary Lynn Tobin Davis, Calif. David Van Dyke St. Paul, Minn. (co-moderators, Covenant Network of Presbyterians) Your Responses (3)
Andy Scott
said:
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed|
... "This proposed AI affords some breathing space for such ministers and sessions, while at the same time reaffirming the freedom of ministers and sessions to say no to any request for the church’s involvement in a marriage ceremony." Which, one must assume, is a temporary dispensation at best. The most recent edition of the Covenant Network's "Guidelines for Examination of Church Officers" explicitly argues that refusal to participate in an ordination under the new BOO constitutes renunciation of jurisdiction: "While candidates who cannot agree to perform such functions in conformity with Presbyterian polity may be fine Christians, they may not be ordained or installed in the PC(USA)." (http://covnetpres.org/resources/guidelines, p.12) It's hard to imagine that the same reasoning might not be applied to marriage services. Mr. Haberer is right about the marriage AI, though he puts the matter too gently, I think. It's a naked power grab, a duplicitous end-run around the deliberative processes of the church, sub-Christian in both substance and method, and a recipe for further division. |
p.w. gregory
said:
|
lambertville, nj The problem with "marriage" in American society is that due to a matter of English common law which Virginia sought to retain, post-Revolution, which allowed Church of England clergy being able to retain a funciton of the civil state, marriage has become a football between the secular state and communities of faith. And that is rub. In faith, the Bible, practice, and the historic application of the term, marriage is indeed a settled matter. Is is between a biological man and biological women. To say otherwise is silly at best, disenegenious. 19th century Mormons tried to claim prior to Utah statehood that the "State" had no right, to apply a historic biblical understanding of marriage to their practices. Supreme Court in 1893 decided otherwise. I doubt they will take up the issue again. As Ameican civil law retains that the state has a vested interest in management of both how both marriage and divorce is administered/regulated for obvious estate/property and child care issues, the secular state is of course free to change, modify, add or deleat any or all laws or clauses dealing with "marriage", or how it is defined under law. The state is free of couse to define marriaga as between a human being and blow-up doll or a pet, as it is to say it is between man-women, or whatever. If we say the First Amendment exists to protect the Church from the State, so it exits to protect the State from the Church. Unless we all move to say France or Sweeden were all marriages or unions are civil or state, I suggest two responses. Either we the church get out of the state's business and no longer perform a function of the state, or the state gets out of our business and quit changing the definition of marriage. Or telling the church who or whom is able to seek the services of a churchor house of worship. Either way, the PCUSA does not get a vote on what God, Scripture has determined as to the nature or context of marriage. Last time we had an IA it was on the matter of PUP, so how did that work out for everybody? The Covenant PAC would as soon drive the church off a cliff to achieve their ends. Again as I like to say it is Constitution, not a suicide pact. I'll stand and wave as everybody else goes off the cliff. |
A Victor Garaffa; Ordained Elder
said:
|
Lake City; Georgia There can only be one response to this article and to this line of thought. "I change not, sayeth The Lord! I am the same today as I was yesterday." Remember Sodom! Do not ever be so foolish as to think He will not do it again. Genesis 6:6 |
