God, who created the human race, made them male and female, so that every man might be satisfied with his own wife, and might not desire more. For he insists on the number two, as the prophet Malachi, (ii. 15,) when he remonstrates against polygamy, employs the same arguments, that God, whose Spirit was so abundant that He had it in His power to create more, yet made but one man, that is such a man as Christ here describes. And thus from the order of creation is proved the inviolable union of one husband with one wife.
-John Calvin[1]
On January 24, 2015, The Covenant Network of Presbyterians met in Baton Rouge, LA where they further discussed the new definition of marriage as voted forth by the PC(USA) General Assembly in the summer of 2014. According to the Covenant Network’s website, Executive Director, Brian Ellison said that if approved by Presbytery’s,
It would describe marriage as involving ‘a unique commitment between two people, traditionally a man and a woman, updating (no longer accurate) language describing marriage as ‘a civil contract between a man and a woman.’
Ellison goes onto say:
In addition to offering greater clarity on the relationship between church and state, the new section offers a more Reformed understanding of what takes place in marriage, in which a couple marry each other by exchanging promises, not by being awarded a special sacred status that only the church can grant.
There are a few things that stand out to me in Ellison’s statement. Let us begin by looking at marriage being both a civil and religious declaration. Ellison refers to marriage being ‘a civil contract between a man and a woman.’ The original language of The Book of Order may be flawed in and of itself. Marriage has been around long before the existence of any type of U.S. civil law. Genesis 2:24 declares “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Even if you put a late dating on the writing of Genesis, we at least have to acknowledge that Genesis reflects the early Jewish understanding of creation and how God set life into motion. Marriage is far more than a civil contract. The way the Church has traditionally celebrated weddings is not based on a civil contract’s definition of the union, but by the Bible’s.
The second notion put forth is Ellison’s comment that “the new section offers a more Reformed understanding of what takes place in marriage.” I am very confused as to what Covenant Network is referring to here. The PC(USA) comes from a rich background that is very influenced by the Reformed Tradition that traces back to John Calvin. Just before John Calvin writes the quote above, he writes about Matthew 19 “Now Christ assumes as an admitted principle, that at the beginning God joined the male to the female, so that the two made an entire man.”[4]
One of the main arguments put forth by like-minded people as the Covenant is that in biblical times there were no biblical counterparts to contemporary relationships between two people. Where I am not completely convinced by this argument, I am convinced by the notion that in biblical times there is an “admitted principle” that traces back to Genesis. Within the Judeo-Christian mindset marriage being between a man and a woman is assumed and expected. Any alternative thought would have been dismissed.
If Ellison’s comment does not line up with John Calvin’s understanding, then maybe the more reformed understanding can be found in the PC(USA)’s Constitution. The definition is currently not supported in the Book of Order, so maybe we can find a defense for the new language in The Confessions. Only, as far as I can tell, it is impossible to find.
Let’s summarize: The Westminster Confession of Faith states:
Christian marriage is an institution ordained by God, blessed by our Lord Jesus Christ, established and sanctified for the happiness and welfare of mankind, into which spiritual and physical union one man and one woman enter, cherishing a mutual esteem and love… [5]
Flash forward to The Confession of 1967:
The relationship between man and woman exemplifies in a basic way God’s ordering of the interpersonal life for which he created mankind. Anarchy in sexual relationships is a symptom of man’s alienation from God, his neighbor, and himself.
Maybe I am confused. Maybe I am far more traditional than the Covenant. Maybe I am completely insensitive to contemporary culture. Maybe, or at least that is what I hear culture telling me. Or, maybe, I am adhering to our own ordination standards where we are “To be guided by Scripture and the confessions.”[6]
How does the proposed new language in the PC(USA) give us a more Reformed understanding of marriage? As far as I can tell by looking at Scripture and The Confessions, it does not.
[1] John Calvin, Calvin Commentaries V. XVI: Harmony of Matthew, Mark, Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2009), 379. [2] Brain Ellison, Executive Director of The Covenant Network of Presbyterians, covnetpress.org. [3] Ibid. [4] Calvin, Comm. V. XVI, 378. [5] BoC, Westiminster Confession, 6.131 [6] BoC, C67, 9.47.
Curtis Brophy is currently serving as the Associate Pastor at Knox Presbyterian Church in Overland Park, KS. He currently upkeeps Knox’s blog at http://www.knoxchurch.org/
7 Comments. Leave new
On a number of occasions in discernment discussion with folks about whether or not to leave the PCUSA, I’ve been asked something like, “If we leave the PCUSA and go elsewhere (like the EPC) will we still be Presbyterian?” My reply has been, “You will be MORE Presbyterian there, because the historic confessional standards of Presbyterianism are adhered to there.” To suggest that a re-definition of marriage that clearly contradicts the confessions of the church is a “more Reformed understanding” is ludicrous.
The crisis we are facing in the culture and the church over marriage stems from the reduction of marriage to a “civil contract” rather than seeing it as a “sacred covenant.” When marriage is simply viewed as a civil contract (a legal arrangement that incorporates certain legal benefits), it’s no wonder that we are pushed by secular legal forces to re-define it so that all are entitled to the legal benefits. Many of us Christians share the blame for this reduction of status. Just look at the divorce rate (and reasons) within the Christian community. If we elevate marriage to the status of “sacred covenant” once again, we have no other option than to view it as Scripture does (and the confessions of the Reformed tradition re-affirm), created and ordained by God in Creation as “a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two become one flesh.”
Jesus Christ alone is the head of the church, thus Church and state do not always have to agree. In any case, the church follows, or is supposed to follow her Lord, not culture, not the world, not the state. 1 John 2:15-17 says: 15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father[a] is not in them. 16 For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.
Furthermore, at its core, being Reformed means to be reformed according to God’s word alone; this is the main principle to be followed if one is to claim the term Reformed. Our total depravity will only lead us to do wrong, without the word of God as our authority, guided by His Holy Spirit, there is no way to glorify and please God.
In addition, Reformed Christians hold the Bible as their authority for all that they believe about God and all that God requires of them. If this is the case, then we must submit to the fact that God established His will for marriage before the fall of Adam and Eve, when they had not yet sinned against God, when their natures had not yet become corrupt, while they were still living under God’s perfect will. This means that in God’s perfect will God established for marriage to be between one man and one woman.
Genesis 2:21-25 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 The man said,“This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” 24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. 25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
After the fall sin has obscured God’s concept of marriage. Nevertheless, as we are born of God and the image of God is restored in us, His Holy Spirit leads us to a life of obedience to His word.
Incidentally, Fundamental Christian values must definitely be based on the word of God, which is composed of the 66 books of the Old and New Testament. The moral law, which is summarized in the 10 commandments, (which are summarized in the two greatest commandments) must be the basis for fundamental Christian Values.
Furthermore, The mission of the church cannot be carried out unless the church preaches against sin; Jesus Christ came to save us from sin. As the Word of God is preached the Holy Spirit convicts us of the guilt of our sin and produces repentance unto life in us. We are saved by God’s grace through faith in Christ alone, and this faith (which is a gift from God) includes repentance unto life. If the church does not preach against sin then it is preaching a false gospel. Subsequently, God’s love cannot be understood unless we understand our fallen nature, our total depravity and how underserving we are of God’s love. To preach God’s love without preaching the reason for which Christ came (to save us from our sin), is a false gospel. God is love, therefore He will not allow His elect to perish, He sent His Son to redeem us from sin and the consequence of sin, which is death (eternal separation from God’s comforting presence).
Finally, Reformed Christians claim the word of God as their rule of faith and practice. Reformed Christians seek to glorify God through obedience to His Word. We do not obey to be saved, but if we have been redeemed, if regeneration has truly taken place, then the Holy Spirit will renew our will and give us the desire and power to obey God in every aspect of life. If we truly love the Lord we will seek to obey Him. Through obedience we glorify Him and enjoy being in Him. Ephesians 2:10. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
Standing for Jesus
Con cariño y amor
en Cristo
Rev. Héctor Reynoso
God made Adam and Eve, Not Adam and steve.
“In addition to offering greater clarity on the relationship between church and state, the new section offers a more Reformed understanding of what takes place in marriage, in which a couple marry each other by exchanging promises, not by being awarded a special sacred status that only the church can grant.”
This has got to be one of the most assinine convoluted statements regarding this who issue I think I have seen, “a reformed understanding”, there was a time we would throw people out of the church by the ear for this kind of stuff. John Calvin is turning over in his grave. Ellison’s version of “reforming” is a WHOLE different version than Calvin and Knox had in mind.
Adam and Steve talk. Awesome!
” To suggest that a re-definition of marriage that clearly contradicts the confessions of the church is a “more Reformed understanding” is ludicrous.”
Even more ludicrous is suggesting a re-definition of marriage that twists what God declared in Genesis–and our Lord reaffirmed when he was questioned about divorce.
Harper Brady is absolutely right: the Presbyterian Church in the United States has no right to the name “Presbyterian,” for it has abandoned the basic doctrines that define Presbyterianism.
I just find it a bit funny that that rainbow image of the PCUSA logo, which I made for one of my blog posts back in late October of 2013 ( https://enarcheblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/here-i-stand-3-a-place-at-the-table/ ), has been picked up by various people and has gradually found its way into numerous settings – most ironically of all, as an illustration for this blog entry, with which I couldn’t disagree more strongly.