A Review of Inclusive Marriage Services: A Wedding Sourcebook
By S. Donald Fortson*.
Several mainline writers have collaborated on a recent book, Inclusive Marriage Services: A Wedding Sourcebook.[1] Contributors to the short volume, not surprisingly, come from denominations such as the UCC, TEC, ELCA and PCUSA – bodies that no longer confess Christian teaching on human sexuality and marriage. This book, and others like it, is a capstone to the great ecclesiastical debate of our time by suggesting language for publicly invoking God’s blessing on homosexual “weddings.” The mainline churches, having abandoned biblical authority in their affirmation of homoerotic behavior, now complete the circle of rationalization in these marriage services.
The editors claim that the book does not seek to reinvent the wedding or redefine marriage.
The introduction describes how the book’s liturgies intend to reflect the language of historic marriage rites but modify them by utilizing language that is broadly inclusive for gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender people. The editors state, “What is different about these services is the language for couples is not gender specific. There is little emphasis on procreation as a chief purpose for marriage.” In addition to gender neutral services, there is also a liturgy for couples in which one partner is not Christian – a violation of biblical teaching (1 Cor. 7:39, 2 Cor. 6:14,15).
For example, the Presbyterian liturgy is adapted from The Book of Common Worship of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Throughout the liturgy one finds “two people” not language of male and female or husband and wife. So “two people become one just as Christ is one with the church.” The vows speak of taking one “to be my beloved” or “to be my own” not taking one as a husband or wife. The exchange of rings is in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit – unchanged language but an abuse of God’s name.
In a section on “Scripture Suggestions” one finds many traditional texts associated with wedding ceremonies. On the Ephesians 5 text which speaks of wives being subject to husbands, there is a long editorial comment in italics (only text with a comment) about “centuries of misusing this liberating text to preach women’s second-class position” – a pejorative comment about past saints with no corroborating historical evidence. One of the suggested biblical texts is 1 Samuel 18, which speaks of the love of Jonathan and David for each other. Of course, this text has nothing to do with anything of a sexual nature but since both men were married, the authors must be implying that David and Jonathan were bisexuals. That is misusing a text!
The book includes a special section on “Same-Gender Weddings” addressing the love-hate relationship that gays may have with a church that has rejected them. Many have left the church so they could “live as the people God made them to be.” So it is important to welcome them back to the church: “At weddings of gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender people, there may be many who have experienced the church as hurtful and judgmental. The welcome is opportunity to speak a new word that many may have not heard from the clergy. These words of welcome can be an important announcement of the gospel of love that Christians know in Jesus Christ.” Historic orthodox Christian teaching knows nothing of such nonsense. God does not make people gay. The book of Genesis provides the foundational narrative for Scripture’s understanding of marriage and sexuality; it is affirmed by Jesus and Paul in the New Testament. According to the Genesis account males and females are sexually designed for each other, and the Fall explains the sexual brokenness that pervades human experience.
One of the recommended “words of welcome” for a gay wedding is very revealing of the sub-Christian theology behind these new liturgies: “We celebrate here the love that welcomes everyone, regardless of whom we love, where we have been, what we believe, or what we have done.” There is much bad theology in this statement – so persons can love whomever they want, believe anything and don’t need to worry about repentance? Does this sound remotely Christian in any sense? This may be politically correct language, but it is not a proclamation of the gospel of love in Jesus Christ who died because of who we are – sinful human beings who need redemption.
Ironically, on the acknowledgments page one finds this statement: “Finally, we give thanks to our ancestors in the faith who shaped the marriage rites from which these liturgies have grown, with prayers that those who use these services will find them to be faithful to the gospel of Jesus Christ and a source of blessing for their unions.” Protestant ancestors would be scandalized by the blessing of same-sex unions.
John Calvin commenting on Romans 1:
“Paul here records those abominations which had been common in all ages, and were at that time especially prevalent everywhere; for it is marvelous how common then was that filthiness which even brute beasts abhor: and some of these vices were even popular . . . he calls those disgraceful passions, which are shameful even in the estimation of men, and redound to the dishonoring of God.”[2]
Martin Luther commenting on the Sodom and Gomorrah story:
“They departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature.”[3]
Presbyterian ancestors, for example, would no doubt declare that “Christian” gay wedding services are a violation of the third commandment. Invoking the name of the Holy Trinity in these services is a perverse misuse of God’s name. And God will not hold person’s guiltless. Consider the old Presbyterian Creed, the Westminster Standards of the 17th C. The Westminster Larger Catechism Ques. 113 asks: What particular sins does the third commandment forbid? The answer includes, “misinterpreting or misapplying God’s word or perverting all or part of its meaning in any way; . . . or to promote sinful desires and activities; maligning, scorning, reviling, or opposing in any way God’s truth, grace, and actions; pretending to be religious or using religion for evil purposes.”[4] Gay marriage services must certainly plead guilty.
What is patently obvious in these liturgies is how diametrically opposed they are to the transforming power of the gospel of Jesus Christ. How is it that some professing believers have become so opposed to the gospel, and seemingly ashamed of its declared power to change lives, that sealing sinful practice in a religious ceremony is now the ministry of the church? Rather than encouraging homosexuals to seek repentance, forgiveness and deliverance from their sin through the gospel, persons are confirmed in sinful life patterns that will destroy them in this life and the next. If this twisting of the gospel is not inspired by the devil, I don’t know what is!
Contrast these devilish marriage services with the glorious power of the gospel as seen in the transformed lives of former homosexuals Christopher Yuan and Rosaria Butterfield .[5] Yuan and Butterfield both bear witness to repentance, forgiveness and a changed life of self-denial – all which flows from the grace of Christ. After the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage, Yuan and Butterfield (who now live respectively in celibate singleness and conjugal marriage) jointly issued a response which included this statement:
“In 1999, when Jesus Christ revealed His saving grace and love to each of us, we learned that our unbelief, and the idolatrous sexual lusts that flowed from it, were no longer matters of personal choice. We accepted that following Jesus meant giving up everything. We understood that repentance meant fleeing from anything that embodied the temptations that we knew best and loved most. . . . when the Holy Spirit changed our hearts, we came to know this: the gospel is costly and worth it. . . . We affirm that God has ordained marriage to be the union of a husband and wife which Jesus himself restated in Mark 10:6-8 and Matthew 19:4-5.”[6]
We should pray for professing Christians who deny that only conjugal marriage between two believers is Christian marriage. Pray for God’s mercy, that they would repent and return to the orthodox Christian faith. Affirming gay marriage is proclaiming a “false gospel” as the Anglican bishops of the majority world have called it. German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg observed:
“If a church were to let itself be pushed to the point where it ceased to treat homosexual activity as a departure from the biblical norm, and recognized homosexual unions as a personal partnership of love equivalent to marriage, such a church would stand no longer on biblical grounds but against the unequivocal witness of Scripture. A church that took this step would cease to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.”[7]
While soft persecution is starting in America against Christian’s refusal to buy the lie in the cultural elite’s pro-gay script, the mainline church is marching right along in the gay pride parade, refusing to call homosexual practice sinful. This false gospel is encouraging people in their sin rather than proclaiming the gospel’s call to repentance. Perpetrating the delusion that Christianity and homosexuality are compatible is the most unloving thing imaginable – affirming sinful behavior that wreaks havoc in this life, and judgment in the life to come. And to seal the deception, the church now provides marriage services invoking the blessing of God upon sinful behavior condemned in Holy Scripture.
Make no mistake about it – affirming homoeroticism through “Christian” marriage services will incur the wrath of God. Jude wrote to early Christians urging them to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” and warning them about those who “pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” And what historic example did Jude use? He wrote, “Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of fire.” (Jude 3-7, ESV). Following the commands of Holy Scripture, our Protestant ancestors did not bless homoerotic behavior among those who profess faith in Christ – neither should we.
*Donald Fortson is Professor of Church History and Practical Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary. He is co-author, with Rollin Grams, of Unchanging Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016).
[1] Inclusive Marriage Services: A Wedding Sourcebook , eds. Kimberly Bracken Long and David Maxwell (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press) 2015.
[2] John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, trans. John Owen, Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. 19 (repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979), 79.
[3] Martin Luther, “Lecture on Genesis,” Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, vol.3 (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1961), 255.
[4] Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechism in Modern English (Summertown Company, 2004), 105, 106.
[5] See Christopher Yuan & Angela Yuan, Out of a Far Country: A Gay Son’s Journey to God. A Broken Mother’s Search for Hope (Colorado Springs: Waterbrook Press, 2011); Rosaria Champagne Butterfield, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert: An English Professor’s Journey into Christian Faith (Pittsburgh: Crown & Covenant Publications, 2012).
[6] “Something Greater Than Marriage: A Response to the Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Decision” (June 30, 2015) by Christopher Yuan and Rosaria Butterfield. Accessible at https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/something-greater-than-marriage
[7] “What Wolfhart Pannenberg Says About This Debate in the Church,” Christianity Today, November 11, 1996, 37.
26 Comments. Leave new
Re: “Contributors to the short volume, not surprisingly, come from denominations such as the UCC, TEC, ELCA and PCUSA – bodies that no longer confess Christian teaching on human sexuality and marriage.”
Surely you meant to type they no longer confess YOUR faith’s version of “Christian teaching”. We ain’t all members of the Reformed Church. (And, WHY did it need to be ‘re-formed’ anyway? did you have it ‘wrong’ before?)
P.S. There’s no such thing as “gay marriage” – only marriage. It says so at the top of my State-issued Marriage Certificate”. My husband and I have been perfectly legally married for well over 12 years now, and we were married in OUR Christian church.
When will these fools understand that marriage is secular and has nothing to do with their religion(s). Matrimony is religious. The civil law addresses civil marriage under civil law.
Seriously, George, you aren’t familiar with the prior abuses of the church and why the Reformation was needed? The reformers had it right, not wrong.
“We celebrate here the love that welcomes everyone, regardless of whom we love, where we have been, what we believe, or what we have done.” There is much bad theology in this statement – so persons can love whomever they want, believe anything and don’t need to worry about repentance?
Why yes – Americans have the freedom to choose who they love and what they believe without having the government or big religion beating them down with a Bible. And it is only “bad theology” according to this man’s beliefs. the other thousands of sects of Christianity might just think this is the best way to think! Marriage is a contract between 2 people and has nothing to do with any one religion. There is no gay marriage – only marriage. It has been accepted by the people and is not going to change so these old folks need to get over it!
Listen…I have now been married 10 years and we have three beautiful children. Our congregation has been just awesome in accepting me and my family with open minds and open hearts. We just feel like all the other blessed families in OUR house of worship. I am glad new couples who wish to follow the path of marriage now have a guide as they move forward in their lives. And George Olds…you are right there is no such thing as SSM…it is just marriage.
I agree … but why the the push for gay marriage in a religiously sanctioned ceremony?
If you are Christian but not Protestant, then you are Catholic or Orthodox. Both of those churches restrict marriage to one man and one woman, as did all of Christianity for 2000 years.
We can be sure that he doesn’t approve of the Catholic view of marriage. He was just making a cheap shot.
George,
The Christian churches have been unified on their teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman since the beginning. It is only a few declining denominations (mostly in the USA), like the ones mentioned above, that teach otherwise.
George, as a man you cannot have a husband. Biologically, philosophically and theologically it is an impossibility despite what a state-issued marriage certificate says. God only desires His best for you (for all of us), and part of that is understanding our own brokenness and going to Christ alone for healing. I say this out of love and concern, not judgment, because I have enough of my own brokenness to testify to Christ’s power to redeem and renew everything in us.
I am FULLY aware of the “prior abuses of the church”, Rick.
Heck, they aren’t even really “prior” – they’re on going.
But your accusation neither addresses my point nor that of the (clearly biased) article.
Not being Catholic myself, “the Catholic* view of marriage” is immaterial to me.
And, America not being a theocracy, it is also immaterial to the nation as a whole.
I note that neither you nor Rick bothered to refute a single word I typed.
* I thought this was the “PLC”, not the ‘CLC’. Perhaps you meant catholic instead of Catholic. Who knows? Certainly “the church” (universal) is NOT of one accord on this matter.
That’s immaterial in a non-theocracy like America.
As my sainted Grandmother used to say, “You go to your church and I’ll go to mine.”
Let the ‘author’ of this article take that to heart. No one is stopping or preventing his church from refusing to marry … ANY couple, contrary to its tenets. And, no one is forcing his church to marry any couple, contrary to its tenets, either.
Um, “since the beginning” is debatable at best, considering the finding of evidence of same-sex unions being performed in the Catholic church in pre-medieval Europe.
Your “declining” claim is also debatable. My inclusive church has outgrown two facilities, as have many others. Church attendance has been “declining” for several decades, well before there even WERE gay people! [/sarcasm].
John,
Your claim that I cannot have a husband is false. And, quite demeaning. (Probably intentionally so.)
YOu cannot cite biology, philosophy and then jump to “God” ‘arguments’. Theologically, “the church” is – observably – NOT of one accord on this matter.
Yes, I agree that God desires the best for me. I’m pretty sure that’s why God sent my husband into my life, more than 32 years ago.
YOu speak of “brokenness”, but you really only get to apply that pejorative to yourself. I am not ‘broken’. Neither am I ‘sick’ or in need of ‘healing’.
Spare me your condescending, smarmy, judgmental “love and concern”. You think God made a mistake when I was created, and you’re simply wrong about that. YOU don’t GET to make that judgment about others (complete strangers to you, no less!) – you’re not ‘qualified’. And, the One Who IS told you not to.
Perhaps because SOME faiths embrace ALL of God’s creation and wish to exercise THEIR right to THEIR “sincerely held religious beliefs”.
But there is NO such “push” to require OTHER faiths to do so.
NO church ever has been and ever WILL be ‘forced’ to marry … ANY couple contrary to its tenets. That would be a “push”, and it simply is NOT happening – anywhere. Otherwise,Catholic priests would have been ‘forced’ to marry non-Catholics and divorced people. Otherwise, Orthodox Rabbis would be ‘forced’ to marry inter-faith couples.
Re: “marriage is secular and has nothing to do with their religion(s). Matrimony is religious. The civil law addresses civil marriage under civil law.”
YOu nailed it, Larry.
Religionists always seem to confuse/conflate the two. In America, the ONLY legal marriages are civil marriages. No ‘God-talk’ is required for such, and no amount OF ‘God-talk’ makes a couple legally married if they have not satisfied the civil elements.
Heck, I hear even ATHEISTS can get legally married in America.
Re: “repentance”
It is neither POSSIBLE nor advisable to “repent” of loving someone. To love others was one of the only 2 commandments Jesus left us with.
Re: “Americans have the freedom to choose who they love and what they believe without having … big religion beating them down with a Bible.”
And still they do it. As witness, I call the ‘author’ of this article. And all the Jerry Falwells, Jimmy Swaggarts, and Kevin Swansons of this world. And shame on them, say I.
Thank you.
We should all pray that those who reject God’s Word and embrace sin rather than fleeing from it will have their eyes opened and receive the courage to battle sin and live in God’s mercy.
No church has been forced to recognize or perform any marriage it hasn’t wanted to. But there are plenty of churches that have been blessing same sex unions for decades and their religious freedom is as important as anyone else’s.
Sorry, George, but the undeniable testimony of Scripture is that we are all broken. We are all sinful. We are all in need of redemption and healing which comes in and through Jesus Christ alone. You know Jesus, when asked about divorce, cited God’s blueprint for marriage as between a man and a woman. And you know there is not a shred of evidence for same-sex relationships in Scripture. I am a sinner. Freely I admit that and each day I have to return to that reality and to the reality of Christ’s atoning grace. You are a sinner, too. You and I are not sinners because we sin. We sin because we are sinners. It is our nature save for the work of Christ. My besetting sins may be different than yours, but I have them nonetheless. You do too and same sex activity is one of them. I never said God made a mistake when He created you. You were created to be in relationship with Him, as was I. But to persist in your behavior is wrong. To speak that to someone isn’t wrong or judgmental. It is an act of love and compassion for one’s neighbor. But I ask one more thing. Please reread your response back to me. I never called you “sick” or asserted that God made a “mistake” in creating you. Those are your words and perhaps they are more revealing about your own thoughts than you think. I can assure you that at the moment of this writing (1:06 pm, Thursday), I have nothing but compassion in my heart, despite what you may think.
George, as of right now, there are 22 posts on this thread. I think 10 or so are yours. All of them have to do with sexual orientation and so on. We can lob verses at each other all day long. But I’m going to quote you exactly. In fact I’m just going to copy and paste –
“Um, “since the beginning” is debatable at best, considering the finding of evidence of same-sex unions being performed in the Catholic church in pre-medieval Europe.” Again, these are your words George.
Let’s just stick to “The Beginning” part of your argument. We can debate this all day long.
George…Genesis IS the beginning. Genesis 1 (one) is the beginning of the beginning. And without Genesis, or the fulfillment of, the Bible would be short 65 books. The beginning is not debatable. The present is not debatable. And the fact that Jesus is going to win in the end is not debatable.
But George, if you’re going to talk about “the beginning”, let’s make sure and agree that Genesis is inerrant, and that Genesis IS the absolute book about creation, and the creation of life. Genesis is only about creation…IN THE BEGINNING.
How arrogant of Christians to think that their book is non debateable! Please- your sect of Christianity is a very small percentage of all the thousands of faiths in this world. Travel the world why don’t you. Your book was written by a human just as we all are and is on the same level as any other book of faith that is being pushed. In fact it has many flaws that have been scientifically proved..it mean, were Adam and eve before or after the dinosaurs and the neanderthals? For you to assume your book is the end of discussion is silly because we who have no one belief in an invisible God are constantly being preached at by those who want us to believe that their book is IT. Mormons, Jews, Jehovohs, etc… You believe what you need to believe to make your life matter and leave the rest of us alone. We are fine without your gods and sins and rules. George is married and so are everyone else who stand up and take their oath of love and do the right thing
Thanks JR. You now have me thinking. Will start looking into the thousands of faiths in this world. You have any suggestions on how I should go through the selection process? Seems like a lot of “faiths” that need to be investigated.
1. Rational folk don’t view 2 people committing to one another in marriae as “sin”. Sad to see that YOU do.
2. Civil marriage isn’t a ‘God-thing’ – in fact, NO religous belief whatsoever is required.