Mainline/Mainstream Anabaptists

[JohnH]

And my answer to your question is that congregations that accommodate gay members or gay marriage are doing the same thing as congregations that accommodate divorced and remarried members.

The point is that they aren't upholding the Confession of Faith, so it is no longer an agreement on how to discern various things in the scriptures. If they are conducting same-sex weddings, it's hard to see how they're upholding this:

We believe that God intends marriage to be a covenant between one man and one woman for life.

I don't see the ambiguity in how to interpret that, and confessions of faith aren't supposed to be ambiguous anyway.

[Ken]

And my answer to your question is that congregations that accommodate gay members or gay marriage are doing the same thing as congregations that accommodate divorced and remarried members.

The point is that they aren't upholding the Confession of Faith, so it is no longer an agreement on how to discern various things in the scriptures. If they are conducting same-sex weddings, it's hard to see how they're upholding this:

We believe that God intends marriage to be a covenant between one man and one woman for life.

I don't see the ambiguity in how to interpret that, and confessions of faith aren't supposed to be ambiguous anyway.

The difference is that is simply a statement of belief on a subject that the Bible and Jesus is silent about. Whereas the prohibition on divorce and remarriage in Luke 16:18 is the actual unambiguous teaching of Jesus.

And the answer to your question is that congregations that accommodate gay members do so using the exact same rationale as congregations that accommodate divorced and remarried members.

[JohnH]

The difference is that is simply a statement of belief on a subject that the Bible and Jesus is silent about. Whereas the prohibition on divorce and remarriage in Luke 16:18 is the actual unambiguous teaching of Jesus.

From Matt. 5:31

“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

And the answer to your question is that congregations that accommodate gay members do so using the exact same rationale as congregations that accommodate divorced and remarried members.

No, they don't, because the confession of faith isn't scripture, and isn't treated like it. Congregations that ignore the COF and do things like have members who are in the military, conduct same sex weddings, and so on are simply ignoring the COF. They can do that if they want but they should at least be upfront that they don't really consider the COF to be guiding or binding at all.

[Buzzy]

The difference is that is simply a statement of belief on a subject that the Bible and Jesus is silent about. Whereas the prohibition on divorce and remarriage in Luke 16:18 is the actual unambiguous teaching of Jesus.

From Matt. 5:31

“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

And the answer to your question is that congregations that accommodate gay members do so using the exact same rationale as congregations that accommodate divorced and remarried members.

No, they don't, because the confession of faith isn't scripture, and isn't treated like it. Congregations that ignore the COF and do things like have members who are in the military, conduct same sex weddings, and so on are simply ignoring the COF. They can do that if they want but they should at least be upfront that they don't really consider the COF to be guiding or binding at all.

My reading of this is that Ken's point - that congregations who conduct (re)marriages of divorced persons are neither different than nor more in line with the COF than congregations in which same-sex weddings are performed - is valid. The COF talks about marriage as being one woman one man for life. Ergo, a divorce violates the COF.

If we take issue with our congregation if they violate the COF by allowing/supporting/conducting marriages between two same-sex people, oughtn't we also take issue with our congregation if they violate the COF by allowing/supporting/conducting marriages in which at least one person has previously been divorced? And if we aren't - why aren't we? The violation still stands.

[JohnH]

My reading of this is that Ken's point - that congregations who conduct (re)marriages of divorced persons are neither different than nor more in line with the COF than congregations in which same-sex weddings are performed - is valid. The COF talks about marriage as being one woman one man for life. Ergo, a divorce violates the COF.

If we take issue with our congregation if they violate the COF by allowing/supporting/conducting marriages between two same-sex people, oughtn't we also take issue with our congregation if they violate the COF by allowing/supporting/conducting marriages in which at least one person has previously been divorced? And if we aren't - why aren't we? The violation still stands.

But if you say you believe the following thing:

We believe that God intends marriage to be a covenant between one man and one woman for life.

It's conceivable a pastor and congregation who claim to affirm the above could officiate a marriage of a previously divorced person; they're hoping the new marriage is for life.

What is not conceivable is how to affirm the above statement and yet still also officiate a marriage of two people of the same sex.

I don't get why people who don't agree with this keep the same COF. Why don't they just come up with one that reflects what they actually believe?

[Neto]

My reading of this is that Ken's point - that congregations who conduct (re)marriages of divorced persons are neither different than nor more in line with the COF than congregations in which same-sex weddings are performed - is valid. The COF talks about marriage as being one woman one man for life. Ergo, a divorce violates the COF.

If we take issue with our congregation if they violate the COF by allowing/supporting/conducting marriages between two same-sex people, oughtn't we also take issue with our congregation if they violate the COF by allowing/supporting/conducting marriages in which at least one person has previously been divorced? And if we aren't - why aren't we? The violation still stands.

But if you say you believe the following thing:

We believe that God intends marriage to be a covenant between one man and one woman for life.

It's conceivable a pastor and congregation who claim to affirm the above could officiate a marriage of a previously divorced person; they're hoping the new marriage is for life.

What is not conceivable is how to affirm the above statement and yet still also officiate a marriage of two people of the same sex.

I don't get why people who don't agree with this keep the same COF. Why don't they just come up with one that reflects what they actually believe?

Maybe they're thinking "Well, yes that is God's intention, but He's OK with it if we go with something different." Not to open the Divorce and Remarriage can of worms again, but I don't think these two issues are the same or similar at all. Not that I would want to see anyone get divorced and remarried, but that is because I would not want any person to go through what is involved in the only reason for that to happen - persistent and unrepentant infidelity. Jesus never said anything like "Same-sex marriage is sin, unless it's two people who are promising to be true to each other for life." I do not think it is righteous to paint the divorced and remarried Christian who is living in faithfulness to God and their current spouse with the same brush as a person who is involved sexually with a person of the same gender. Every single time such relationships are mentioned in Scripture it is clearly condemned as a violation of God's will. Every time.

[cooper]

My reading of this is that Ken's point - that congregations who conduct (re)marriages of divorced persons are neither different than nor more in line with the COF than congregations in which same-sex weddings are performed - is valid. The COF talks about marriage as being one woman one man for life. Ergo, a divorce violates the COF.

If we take issue with our congregation if they violate the COF by allowing/supporting/conducting marriages between two same-sex people, oughtn't we also take issue with our congregation if they violate the COF by allowing/supporting/conducting marriages in which at least one person has previously been divorced? And if we aren't - why aren't we? The violation still stands.

In the 1995 confession, this paragraph is in the commentary of Article 19, which acknowledges the presence of divorce and remarriage in the church.

4. Some in the church experience divorce, abuse, sexual misconduct, and other problems that make marriage and family life burdensome or even impossible. Jesus affirmed the sanctity of marriage (Matthew 5:32) and pointed to hardness of the heart as the ultimate cause of divorce (Mark 10:4-9). Today's church needs to uphold the permanency of marriage and help couples in conflict move toward reconciliation. At the same time, the church, as a reconciling and forgiving community, offers healing and new beginnings. The church is to bring strength and healing to individuals and families.

There is no acknowledgment of same sex relationships. It would seem MC USA would revise the confession of faith to reflect their changing view of same-sex relationships. I doubt they will because touching the confession of faith would probably bring up a lot of other doctrinal disunity across MC USA.

[Ken]

It's conceivable a pastor and congregation who claim to affirm the above could officiate a marriage of a previously divorced person; they're hoping the new marriage is for life.

and...

Maybe they're thinking "Well, yes that is God's intention, but He's OK with it if we go with something different." Not to open the Divorce and Remarriage can of worms again, but I don't think these two issues are the same or similar at all. Not that I would want to see anyone get divorced and remarried, but that is because I would not want any person to go through what is involved in the only reason for that to happen - persistent and unrepentant infidelity. Jesus never said anything like "Same-sex marriage is sin, unless it's two people who are promising to be true to each other for life." I do not think it is righteous to paint the divorced and remarried Christian who is living in faithfulness to God and their current spouse with the same brush as a person who is involved sexually with a person of the same gender. Every single time such relationships are mentioned in Scripture it is clearly condemned as a violation of God's will. Every time.

I’m not aware of any scripture which says that the adulterous nature of divorce and remarriage fades away over time.

Look, I'm not divorced and remarried. And I'm also not gay. So these two issues don't affect me at all. And I'm loath to judge anyone in either circumstance. Let He who is without sin cast the first stone and so forth...My own personal opinion is that a 21st Century Jesus would welcome both divorced people and gay people into his church.

I'm just pointing out that churches that do accommodate gay marriage are making the same rationalization as those that accommodate divorce and remarriage. I frankly don't see a meaningful difference.

And to answer Josh's persistent hammering of the 1995 COF? I would suggest that the answer is that Mennonites are generally not wedded to dogma to the extent that say Catholics are. And look more to the teachings of Jesus for guidance rather than a 30-year-old COF that was drafted as a compromise document at some church conference.

[Ernie]

And to answer Josh's persistent hammering of the 1995 COF? I would suggest that the answer is that Mennonites are generally not wedded to dogma to the extent that say Catholics are. And look more to the teachings of Jesus for guidance rather than a 30-year-old COF that was drafted as a compromise document at some church conference.

The Mennonites you reference are Mainline/Mainstream Mennonites. Plain Anabaptists are wedded to confessions of faith much older than 30 years.

[Ken]

And to answer Josh's persistent hammering of the 1995 COF? I would suggest that the answer is that Mennonites are generally not wedded to dogma to the extent that say Catholics are. And look more to the teachings of Jesus for guidance rather than a 30-year-old COF that was drafted as a compromise document at some church conference.

The Mennonites you reference are Mainline/Mainstream Mennonites. Plain Anabaptists are wedded to confessions of faith much older than 30 years.

Isn't that who we are talking about here in this thread?

But I suspect that plain Anabaptists are also not wedded to church dogma nearly to the extent that Catholicism and Orthodoxy is. Which is why there are bazillions of different permutations of plain Anabaptism and not one hierarchical plain Anabaptist church all aligned to dogma passed down from on high.