We are witnessing an all-out attack on marriage.

I think the exact opposite.

I think the GOVERNMENT should stay out of the marriage business and the Church should stay in.

Episcopal clergy jumping off the sinking ship ping

Nobody said the end times were going to be pleasant.

I thought this was the most interesting quote:

George Raya is a member of Integrity, the Episcopal Church’s support group for gays and lesbians.

“I heard about it last week,” he said. “To me, it’s (the church’s) way of getting around treating us equally. As soon as we can get married, they want us to get blessed? A lot of us would like to get married in church.”

Sounds like he is declaring the new gay front: demand right to be married in churches. I would not be surprised if they argued that churches were tax-supported edifices where they could demand to be married, even if by civil authorities rather than the church authority. Thus, the “church wedding” without the church.

Incidentally, every organization which didn’t want to be involved in sanctioning gay relationships ought to be frantically combing their rules and regulations right now to remove mention of married couples having certain rights or privileges else homosexual couples will challenge them as soon as possible.

No, this is more of a divorce (HA!) from secularization and materialism.

Weddings have gotten too complicated, with the bride and the groom focusing on everything but God and their future together. It looks like they want to reestablish the true meaning of marriage. Or give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s.

And this is also a hedge against gay-marriage - with the priest stripped of his secular responsibility, that will eliminate any leverage a gay couple could exert on the Church to perform the ceremony.

Exactly. Something is way wrong with any religion that thinks it needs government permission to marry its members.

“Gay” couples will never have a covenant with God and His blessing over their sham “unions”. Doesn’t matter what they believe, want or think is right in their own eyes. Doesn’t matter if they take their “vows” to each other in a building that calls itself a “church”. Doesn’t matter how many activist judges change the law to serve immorality. Eternally, they are fighting a losing battle and I pray for their souls.

Hi! Ping to my post #8.

“Some Judges Opt Out of Reality Duty”

Gay couples long ago gave up any quest for God’s approval. Their object is to get public approval and to make everyone else look the same as they do. It’s all in the attitude of “we will be equal in all ways or we will destroy the parts that make us unequal”. They want to “look” like they have church blessing by having their “wedding” in a church and if trends continue, they will get their way so long as churches are granted tax exempt status. I think the time will come that churches—real churches—will have to forego any and all tax exemption as a price of maintaining their religious integrity.

“...I think the time will come that churches-real churches-will have to forego any and all tax exemption as a price of maintaining their religious integrity.”

Eventually, they will have to if they want to honor the Lord and uphold the truth of His Word. Matt 6:24

I wish I had a better historic perspective, but I think that during the Roman period marrying people (or at least a formula for witnessing marriages) was primarily a function of the state. After Constantine at least, the Church took over the function, primarily because it was the only viable institution around. After being so long “in the marriage business”, marriage acquired much more of a sacred aura (I believe it always had one)-—even being regarded as a sacrament by the Church. In Judaism, marriage was always religious in essence.
I can see why some clergy want to opt out of the marriage business. In the RC Church, if two people want to get married in a church ceremony all they have to do is produce their bbaptismal certificates (if they’re both Catholic) and go to a few Cana classes. Maybe the rules should be stricter? But there is some money in it for the clergy, so why turn away a gift horse.

Thanks to rabscuttle385 for the ping.

Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (sometimes 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15

The exact opposite ought to be promoted by the Christian churches. What a dolt to recommend churches to forsake participation in marriage vows. Marriages need more faith, not less.

This guy must not be a serious Christian leader.

In the RC church, matrimony is considered a sacrament, as well as a commitment to each other through vows. The couple makes vows in the presence of witnesses, a priest, and GOD! Therefore, such a wedding brings forth blessings from above to strengthen the bond.

For thirty years we have been teaching, and preaching from the pulpit, that there is no Biblical requirement for any pastor to perform weddings. There is neither instruction to do so in the Scriptures, nor is there even one single example of any minister in the Bible having performed a wedding.

I also do not believe that the Bible prohibits ministers from officiating weddings.

Early in my ministry I wrote a set of minimum rules and requirements. The document (still used) states, basically, that I will consider by prayer officiating weddings, provided the listed rules are kept, listed principles are adhered to, and certain prerequisites are met.

The document also has a negative side: I state that I definitely will not officiate a wedding under certain conditions, which I list in the document.

I explain in the document, that since the Lord does not require me to officiate weddings, any couple requesting my endorsement to their marriage (officiating is giving an endorsement) will have to abide by my rules.

My rules are NOT personally aimed toward anyone or any couple in particular, since they were written and published and distributed far in advance.

I spent a lot of time in the Bible when formulating the rules, and I desire in my heart to abide by Scriptural principles.

As published, these rules are available, and a copy is given to any couple who would approach me, asking me to officiate their wedding. Do you know what has happened in 30 years? I have only officiated three weddings in 30 years. One was my son's, and one was my daughter's. The third couple are in China.

People will walk in off the street just expecting that I will accept $50 to $100 to officiate their wedding. I give the couple a copy of my published rules, principles, and prerequisites, and ask them to read it thoroughly. That virtually always ends that. They never return. And I say, Wonderful! I praise God for it!

What about my own children? Actually the rules are even more stringent for my own children.

Both individuals must be able to give, with their own mouth, a Biblical testimony of having been saved by Grace because of the shed Blood of Jesus Christ.

Both individuals must be living out an OBVIOUS Christian testimony.

At least one in the couple must be a member of our church, in good standing, and demonstrating faithfulness to the meetings of the church.

Those are just a couple of the items on the positive side. I have to know the couple well. Imagine a couple wanting a church wedding when in weekly practice they demonstrate little or no appreciation for the church or its purposes or its ministries?! What a mockery!

I will not officiate the wedding of any couple that has had un-chaperoned dating practices. We preach against dating from our pulpit, and so, at least one member of the couple, being a member of the church, will understand exactly why. Of course, a clear Christian testimony precludes un-chaperoned dating. We teach Biblical Christian courtship, NOT dating.

I will not allow the couple to write their own vows. NO! I will tell them what they must vow if they want me to officiate the wedding. They must study the vows and the reasons for the vows well in advance. The couple may plan their own wedding, but I must approve every aspect of it. I have veto rights over anything, especially the MUSIC. My soul, What some people want for music at a wedding these days !! Now, my point is not to propound my rules. My point is to say that I recommend that pastors should set rules, publish them, and stick to them.

The exact opposite ought to be promoted by the Christian churches. What a dolt to recommend churches to forsake participation in marriage vows. Marriages need more faith, not less.

I don't think this is the case. I see a bishop trying to protect the validity, integrity and sacredness of Christian sacrement of Matrimony. Same sex marriage opens the Church to claims of discrimination for refusing to perform same sex ceremonies. If the Church is instructing couples to get married in a civil ceremony and then come to the Church ofr a blessing there can be no discrimination charge brought against the church. The Church gets to say who can and can not participate in the sacrements.

This is common practice in most European countries. The civil marriage is usually a just a simple affair and the Church blessing is the main event. I can see where churches will want to let the state do marriage while they concern themselves with Matrimony.

It does not exempt landlords, who pay taxes.

In my state, Colorado, anyone can officiate at a wedding...in fact, there is no requirement for an officiant. So, when someone calls me to officiate at their wedding, I count it a privilege. I do not have the same requirements that John Leland has (see above), and consider my invitation to officiate as an invitation to participate with the couple.

I use that participation as an opportunity to meet with the couple later, Christian or non-Christian. I tell them up front that I want to meet with them about six months after the wedding. All kinds of neat things happen as a result.

I have officiated at 14 weddings this month. Not all of them will come back, but since they were going to marry anyway, in some cases I am able to establish a continuing ministry with them that I might not have had otherwise.

BTW, I have been in ministry for 30 years, graduating from Talbot Seminary, pastored several civilian churches before returning to active duty in the Army to serve out my career as a chaplain. I have been ministering to military academy cadets since I retired in 1995, and with homeschoolers for the last 6 years. I am Baptist by ordination, conservative evangelical by choice. (there are liberal so-called evangelicals today, and I am not one of them). I say this only to stave off claims of liberalism, and perhaps universalism. I am a leaky, dispensational Calvinist.

I agree with Leland that there is no model for a wedding in the Scriptures, and no requirement, nor prohibition, about pastoral participation in a wedding ceremony. I have chosen a different philosophy than he has, and I think neither of us is wrong in our approach.

Sorry but marriage and matrimony are interchangeable terms in the law. At least until now. This is not only an attack on the social institution of mriiage but on what people in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions consider a Sacrament. You don’t think that the gays will be demanding the Blessing as a matter of right? You don’t thibnk that the feminists will be demanding the right to ordination if they don’t get their way in the Church? You expect reasonableness from fanatics and the gay-lesbian lobby is fanantical.

You don’t think that the gays will be demanding the Blessing as a matter of right? You don’t thibnk that the feminists will be demanding the right to ordination if they don’t get their way in the Church? You expect reasonableness from fanatics and the gay-lesbian lobby is fanantical.

That's the whole point. They have no standing in the law regarding how a Church dispenses it's Sacremental duties. None what so ever.

This is not only an attack on the social institution of mriiage but on what people in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions consider a Sacrament.

Please don't presume to tell me what Catholics consider a Sacrament. I know full well...I also know that there is a distinct difference between civil marriage and the Sacrament of Matrimony.

You assume that what you propose is a sufficient legal hedge to protect the sacrament. That works only if the people on the other side, joined by many in the Church, don’t decide to take down that hedge. I have no confidence that they will not try.

In Christian civilization neither the church nor the state had much to do with marriages prior to the 1500s. Until then Christian marriages were considered primarily a private matter. The state did make laws about who could be married and inheritance and the church registered the marriages, but it was not compulsory. Most Christian marriages were by mutual consent. The couple need only promise verbally to each other that they would be married. The presence of a priest or witnesses was not required.

In 1545, the Council of Trent ruled that marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest in front of at least two witnesses. This naturally drove some reformers to move in the opposite direction choosing the civil authorities to register marriages.

In 1546 John Calvin created the Geneva Marriage Ordinance. This is what the majority of us would consider conventional Christian marriage today. It required state registration and church consecration for a marriage to be valid. It also gave us rules for courtship and matchmaking, consent to engagement and marriage, parental consent, the various impediments to marriage, inter religious marriage, premarital sex and desertion, and bans and weddings that we associate with traditional Christian marriages.

Still there were other protestants like the Puritans who frowned on anything relating marriage to the church. In early Massachusetts the Puritans passed laws prohibiting weddings to be held in churches and required only civil magistrates preform and register marriages.

What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. Ecclesiastes 1:9

Sounds like he is declaring the new gay front: demand right to be married in churches.

Charles Colson said exactly this same thing today.

I'm assuming you've never heard of this clown Marc Andrus. He marches in gay pride parades. This is anything but an attempt to defend the sanctity of Christian marriage.

A few years ago the Primates of the various provinces in the Anglican Communion issued the Windsor Report (mostly as a response to ECUSA ordaining a gay bishop) which, among other things, forbade celebrating same-sex "marriages." This ploy by Andrus is just a way to allow "blessings" in his diocese while claiming that they're not really performing marriage ceremonies, and are thus "Windsor-compliant."

Nor is this an aberration. Dishonesty of this sort is pretty much par for the course for ECUSA (or TEC as they call themselves now) these days.

Here’s my suggestion:

Let the state perform civil unions for anyone. This would cover the civil requirements of the government.

Let the church only marry those who:

are a man and woman entering into a scriptural marriage
who agree to live a scriptural marriage with it’s rights, responsibilities and obligations.
end it only by death or the scriptural reasons for divorce. should a divorce be necessary, the couple must show scriptural grounds. The church must sign off and then it gets unraveled in civil court.