Are We Playing Church?

[John of Japan]

My church recently added to its Constitution that marriage is only between a man and a woman. We were advised to do so to prevent possible legal challenges in the future if we declined to marry two people of the same gender.

So did ours. Any church which does not do this at this time faces great difficulties in the future--unless they believe abomination is okay.

 

[HAMel]

Thank you, John. I can't for the life of me understand why any church would be adamantly apposed to a Statement of Faith or By-Laws reflecting such. It's so simple.

 

[Aaron]

Just be glad you didn't say something about the music . . .

 

[Zaac]

Recently we have been studying the 7 churches of Revelation.

RE: The church at Ephesus:
They were commended by Jesus for their stand against evil folk and false apostles who were found to be liars (Jesus always speaks His mind).
However He was also as strong in His rebuke "you have left your first love".

Why does this happen? Well, reading 1 Corinthians 13 :
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

In another place:
1 Corinthians 8:1 Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.

Personally I believe there must be a balance between truth and love (agape).

If we are strong in the truth we must also be strong in agape else we become legalistic, pharisaical.
On the other hand we cannot yield to the world - e.g. approve or perform a same gender marriage even if it is legal. Murder of the unborn is also legal.

Here is another reason they might have left their first love:

Matthew 24:12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

We certainly have that problem today.

So what should that balance be?

We cannot adopt the sinful philosophies of the world today, so we must gently as possible let our position be known.

2 Timothy 2
24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

Then pray and leave it in God's hands.

Will we suffer the legal consequence here in America for our position and/or refusing to perform a legal function?

The answer ranges somewhere in between - possibly to probably.

Then we will be more like the church at Smyrna (the suffering church).
... be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

That's not "fear mongering" but simply "facing reality".

HankD

Well said Hank. Love has to be the reason.
I think if folks just start changing their Statements of Faith and have not been directed out of the love of Christ to do so, but rather out of a fear of facing future legal troubles, that it will do a dishonor to Christ, and will serve, just as in this instance, as another opportunity to divide churches.

There's nothing Biblical that requires that churches even have a "statement of faith". So IMO, for division to arise because a pastor will not consider changing one, seems to be rather self-defeating.

 

[Zaac]

Thank you, John. I can't for the life of me understand why any church would be adamantly apposed to a Statement of Faith or By-Laws reflecting such. It's so simple.

Obviously, it isn't so simple. Why would a need exist to add to a statement of faith if you're already preaching the full Gospel? It just seems kinda reactionary.

I don't see a problem in doing so. I just don't think there's reason for division if a pastor doesn't want to consider it as long as he's preaching the full Gospel.

If he were acting like Olsteen and deciding that he couldn't preach the parts of the Bible that deal with what Biblical marriage is, then I'd have a concern. But as long as a pastor is SCRIPTURALLY and MORALLY sound, I always tell people to be very careful about challenging his authority to do or not do something.

 

[Jerome]

Maybe the pastor is just following the counsel of the ECFA:

Same Sex Marriage...Legal Implications for Churches (PDF)

"Do churches that are opposed doctrinally to same-sex marriages need to amend their bylaws?

In Most Cases – Not Necessary

1. No court in 238 years has found a minister liable for refusing to perform a marriage contrary to his or her religious beliefs (think incest, bigamy, etc.).

2. Many church bylaws already contain doctrinal statements that are broad enough to bar same sex marriage.

3. Don’t look to isolated cases in Europe—there is no First Amendment protection.

4. Existing Supreme Court precedent and clergy autonomy.

5. Not appropriate in bylaws.

6. Why single out same-sex marriage amidst all the other marriages that many clergy will not perform due to theological considerations.

7. A clause in a church’s bylaws will not matter:
• Would be ignored by an activist/secularist court
• Church could prove doctrinal position without such a clause

8. cf. policy manual"

 

[John of Japan]

Obviously, it isn't so simple. Why would a need exist to add to a statement of faith if you're already preaching the full Gospel? It just seems kinda reactionary.

I don't see a problem in doing so. I just don't think there's reason for division if a pastor doesn't want to consider it as long as he's preaching the full Gospel.

If he were acting like Olsteen and deciding that he couldn't preach the parts of the Bible that deal with what Biblical marriage is, then I'd have a concern. But as long as a pastor is SCRIPTURALLY and MORALLY sound, I always tell people to be very careful about challenging his authority to do or not do something.

It's not a straight up and down Biblical matter, but a legal matter. Our church was advised by a Christian lawyer to re-write the constitution to define marriage Biblically (of course knowing that the Bible does not require a church constitution). This is a preventative measure for future legal troubles. Given the way US society is going, in the very near future Bible-believing churches will be sued for not allowing homosexual "marriage."

Anyone keeping up with the legal climate in the US knows this. Just do a quick Google search on "Christian florist gay marriage," and you'll see what the fuss is about. Note that the Christian florist got in trouble partly for not having a written policy. Here is a good, somewhat balanced article about what is going on, mentioning several other cases: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/anti-gay-marriage-windfall-flows-to-fined-florist/

 

[John of Japan]

Maybe the pastor is just following the counsel of the ECFA:

Same Sex Marriage...Legal Implications for Churches (PDF)

"Do churches that are opposed doctrinally to same-sex marriages need to amend their bylaws?

In Most Cases – Not Necessary

1. No court in 238 years has found a minister liable for refusing to perform a marriage contrary to his or her religious beliefs (think incest, bigamy, etc.).

2. Many church bylaws already contain doctrinal statements that are broad enough to bar same sex marriage.

3. Don’t look to isolated cases in Europe—there is no First Amendment protection.

4. Existing Supreme Court precedent and clergy autonomy.

5. Not appropriate in bylaws.

6. Why single out same-sex marriage amidst all the other marriages that many clergy will not perform due to theological considerations.

7. A clause in a church’s bylaws will not matter:
• Would be ignored by an activist/secularist court
• Church could prove doctrinal position without such a clause

8. cf. policy manual"

IMO, the church that makes the change in the constitution and/or bylaws but then does not need it, is in much better shape than the church that doesn't make the change and then gets sued. It's not like it's that hard to make the change! The average church member in our good Baptist churches would stand by the change, no question.

 

[John of Japan]

One thing not recognized yet on this thread (and in most similar discussions) is the aggressiveness of the homosexual activists. They will not stop until their agenda completely dominates American society. There is a Biblical parallel: note the extreme aggressiveness of the men of Sodom, even after being blinded by the angels (Gen. 19).

 

[annsni]

I totally agree with you John. Saying that no court in 238 years has found a clergy member guilty for not marrying someone when that marriage is against his beliefs is really not the issue. Up until recently, the courts also felt that marriage was between a man and a woman and yet we see that change. A church has every right to ignore the writing on the wall and set themselves up for being sued but I do find it sad when that decision is based on not wanting to offend big givers to the church.

 

[Zaac]

It's not a straight up and down Biblical matter, but a legal matter. Our church was advised by a Christian lawyer to re-write the constitution to define marriage Biblically (of course knowing that the Bible does not require a church constitution). This is a preventative measure for future legal troubles. Given the way US society is going, in the very near future Bible-believing churches will be sued for not allowing homosexual "marriage."

I understand the legality part of it. But a pastor not wanting to consider doing so is just not a reason for division in the church, or a division between a pastor and one of his congregants as Hamel demonstrated.

At statement of Faith simply isn't a SCRIPTURAL or MORAL issue upon which to take issue with the pastor unless he's trying to put something unscriptural in there.

Otherwise, this is just a differing of opinions that should not be a wedge between members of the Body.

Anyone keeping up with the legal climate in the US knows this. Just do a quick Google search on "Christian florist gay marriage," and you'll see what the fuss is about. Note that the Christian florist got in trouble partly for not having a written policy. Here is a good, somewhat balanced article about what is going on, mentioning several other cases: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/anti-gay-marriage-windfall-flows-to-fined-florist/

Again, I understand those cases and the legal trepidation that may have cast itself over a lot of churches. But those have very little to do with what Hamel has expressed. The pastor doesn't want to change the SOF to show what they believe marriage to be.

And that's simply not a reason for division. And for him to start collecting reasons (the examples given) for why he thinks the pastor will not consider it seems to speak to the motif not being a pure one, IMO.

 

[Zaac]

One thing not recognized yet on this thread (and in most similar discussions) is the aggressiveness of the homosexual activists.

Again. So what? That's not what this thread was about. Hamel has expressed disapproval of the decision of his pastor to do something Hamel believes needs to be done or at least considered. He was offended by the pastor's response to his suggestion. THAT is what this thread is about. It has nothing to do with the aggressiveness of homosexual activists.

This is one of those situations that comes up so often in churches and people leave to find another church because their feelings got hurt.

The pastor has not done anything SCRIPTURALLY or MORALLY wrong according to what Hamel has presented. To be authoring division out of that is not of Christ.

They will not stop until their agenda completely dominates American society. There is a Biblical parallel: note the extreme aggressiveness of the men of Sodom, even after being blinded by the angels (Gen. 19).

Their agenda won't be stopped by a SOF. But I say again, this thread has nothing to do with their agenda.

 

[annsni]

I understand the legality part of it. But a pastor not wanting to consider doing so is just not a reason for division in the church, or a division between a pastor and one of his congregants as Hamel demonstrated.

At statement of Faith simply isn't a SCRIPTURAL or MORAL issue upon which to take issue with the pastor unless he's trying to put something unscriptural in there.

Otherwise, this is just a differing of opinions that should not be a wedge between members of the Body.



Again, I understand those cases and the legal trepidation that may have cast itself over a lot of churches. But those have very little to do with what Hamel has expressed. The pastor doesn't want to change the SOF to show what they believe marriage to be.

And that's simply not a reason for division. And for him to start collecting reasons (the examples given) for why he thinks the pastor will not consider it seems to speak to the motif not being a pure one, IMO.

I totally agree with what you are saying .... except that the OP expressed that it seemed like the reasoning behind not coming up with a by-law addition was because big members in the church have family who are gay and so the church doesn't want to rock the boat with them:

So, with all of this said it does appear that MY church refuses to address the matter simply because it would “offend” other members. To me, the truth should not offend as it's the truth! It seems to me that those controllers within MY church dance around the subject under the impression that if it's out sight..., it's out mind..., and just maybe the problem will go away. No, problems don't “go away”..., they only manifest. To me, this willingness to abstain from the entire Gospel waters down the real purpose of the church and specifically hinders the Holy Spirit.

If that is the true reason that the church is not taking this step then I agree with leaving the church.

 

[Zaac]

I totally agree with you John. Saying that no court in 238 years has found a clergy member guilty for not marrying someone when that marriage is against his beliefs is really not the issue. Up until recently, the courts also felt that marriage was between a man and a woman and yet we see that change. A church has every right to ignore the writing on the wall and set themselves up for being sued but I do find it sad when that decision is based on not wanting to offend big givers to the church.

So how did this thread become an assault against the same sex marriage folks? Isn't the OP about Hamel being offended because his pastor wouldn't consider beefing up their SOF, and went so far as to call him a fear-mongerer?

 

[HankD]

Maybe the pastor is just following the counsel of the ECFA:

Same Sex Marriage...Legal Implications for Churches (PDF)

"Do churches that are opposed doctrinally to same-sex marriages need to amend their bylaws?

In Most Cases – Not Necessary

1. No court in 238 years has found a minister liable for refusing to perform a marriage contrary to his or her religious beliefs (think incest, bigamy, etc.).

Yes but these are unparalleled times Jerome.

When I was a young man (50 years ago) no one, absolutely no one would have ever thought that baby-in-the-womb-murder would be legalized by the SCOTUS. Not only that we now have legalized "Death with dignity" in a few States including my own - Washington State AKA - assisted suicide. And if the victim is unable to decide (for whatever reason: epidemiological or other) on his/her own, then the presiding doctor can decide for him/her to off the person. Euthanasia in disguise.

2. Many church bylaws already contain doctrinal statements that are broad enough to bar same sex marriage.

That is not exactly the issue IMO Jerome. If may soon be that if certain persons win the administration seats new "hate laws" will be initiated which (unlike the immigration laws) will be enforced.
The central issue is found (but kind of hidden) in Jesus statement after Peter's confession in Matthew 16:

16 Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
...
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Gates of the cities in the desert plain were populated by Militants, financial types along with religious leaders, no one entered unless by consensus of these authorities.

In other words the "gates of hell" are representative of the authority figure(s) of hell - satan,

So this challenge to the local churches which is coming via our government shouldn't surprise us or cause us to fear but to face the reality:

Timothy 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

Yes - easier said than done but these new "hate laws" may be the springboard to launch satan's plan against the church - but as Jesus said - the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church.

IMO the present institutional church may very well again be typified by the church of Smyrna:

Revelation 2
9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.
11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

The separating of the sheep from the goats is coming IMO.
The gathering of the tares from among the wheat...

An opportunity to glorify God (or be ashamed at His coming).

We need to pray for grace to endure to the end - His Appearing.

1 Peter 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

My opinion of course (apart from the scripture quotes).

BTW, I don't mean we will go through the Tribulation but a purging/refining of the church preceding Jacob's trouble:

1 Peter 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

HankD

 

[John of Japan]

Again, I understand those cases and the legal trepidation that may have cast itself over a lot of churches. But those have very little to do with what Hamel has expressed. The pastor doesn't want to change the SOF to show what they believe marriage to be.

And that's simply not a reason for division. And for him to start collecting reasons (the examples given) for why he thinks the pastor will not consider it seems to speak to the motif not being a pure one, IMO.

Normally I would agree with you. I hate church splits with a passion.

But I have to say, "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Ps. 11:3). A proper view of marriage is foundational to any society. As soon as a society abandons such a foundation of its existence as normal marriage, it will start to come apart at the seams. Just take a look at those Biblical societies that abandoned basic morality (child sacrifice to Molech, for example). Do they still exist? No. Or, read Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

Having said that, I would agree that the best thing for Hamel is to find another church, one that takes a stand.

 

[Zaac]

I totally agree with what you are saying .... except that the OP expressed that it seemed like the reasoning behind not coming up with a by-law addition was because big members in the church have family who are gay and so the church doesn't want to rock the boat with them:

You say "seemed like". He says "it took a few days to sort it all out" and then he did the same thing that you did with the "SEEMED LIKE". He was offended so he CONJECTURED as to why the pastor would offend him and take the position that he did.

He went and looked for reasons why he felt like the pastor took the stance that he did. His reason may or may not be correct. But he now believes it is correct.

Hamel IS NOT following the Biblically prescribed method of dealing with something if you feel you have been wronged by a Brother. He is, rather unfortunately, speculating and talking up a division that shouldn't be in the church over something that appears to be neither SCRIPTURALLY or MORALLY wrong on the pastor's behalf.

People getting their feelings hurt is one of the primary reasons that they change churches. And I say again, unless the pastor is SCRIPTURALLY or MORALLY wrong, submit to his authority on the leadership in the church.

If that is the true reason that the church is not taking this step then I agree with leaving the church.

Except he doesn't KNOW this. He's guessing at what he thinks is the reason and that amounts to gossip.

 

[John of Japan]

1. No court in 238 years has found a minister liable for refusing to perform a marriage contrary to his or her religious beliefs (think incest, bigamy, etc.).

A friend who is following this thread sent me this link:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...-who-refuse-to-perform-same-sex-weddings.html

And then he pointed out, "And if objectors allow the state's contention that a wedding chapel is not a church, ordained ministerial refusal notwithstanding -- how long will it take until the issue spills over? The future is coming and it ain't looking good...."

Oh and by the way, such things as incestual marriage and the like are against the law anyway--hardly a parallel to the homosexual "marriage" issue.

Here is another relevant link about the florist who is being sued by the Attorney General of her state for simply following her Christian beliefs and actually putting into practice what she believes. What if we are allowed our freedom of religious thought, but are not allowed to actually practice our faith? http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/20/living/stutzman-florist-gay/

 

[John of Japan]

So how did this thread become an assault against the same sex marriage folks? Isn't the OP about Hamel being offended because his pastor wouldn't consider beefing up their SOF, and went so far as to call him a fear-mongerer?

Getting hot in here, eh what?

 

[Zaac]

Normally I would agree with you. I hate church splits with a passion.

But I have to say, "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Ps. 11:3).

I agree John. But this is NOT being handled, from what Hamel expressed, in the Scripturally prescribed way that would say he is making an issue of this for the right reason. From what he has presented and the way in which he conjectured about why he THINKS the pastor made the decision he did, just doesn't, IMO again, speak to the right level of spiritual maturity in this instance.

A proper view of marriage is foundational to any society. As soon as a society abandons such a foundation of its existence as normal marriage, it will start to come apart at the seams. Just take a look at those Biblical societies that abandoned basic morality (child sacrifice to Molech, for example). Do they still exist? No. Or, read Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

Again, I completely agree.

Having said that, I would agree that the best thing for Hamel is to find another church, one that takes a stand.

I disagree because IMO, Hamel, is in the wrong. He was offended by the pastor's response to beefing up the SOF and he has possibly/possibly not surmised correctly/incorrectly about why the pastor did not want to beef up the SOF, rather than addressing his issue again with the pastor.

Instead, he has chosen to surmise about why the pastor did not respond in agreement with what he (Hamel) thinks should be done. This is GOSSIP.

Hamel didn't say anything about the pastor having not affirmed at any time that he believes or doesn't believe in marriage as defined by Scripture.

He just didn't think it warranted a change to the SOF.

Congregants need to learn how to submit to a pastor's leadership. And again, if the pastor is not doing something unScriptural or immoral, side with his judgment in the leadership of the church as you did when you joined.