NOTE: The content below expresses the views of the individual named as the author and does not necessarily reflect the position of the WRF as a whole.
WRF Board Member Dr. Ron Scates Commends "The Marriage Pledge"
Brothers and Sisters in the Lord Jesus Christ - I think it is important for all of us, but especially for members and leaders of the World Reformed Fellowship, to be aware of this growing movement in support of “The Marriage Pledge.” This movement was sparked by sparked by the theological journal “First Things.” I know personally many of those who are making this happen and I commend the pledge to all who are concerned about these matters.
The link to the website where one can sign the pledge is immediately below my signature and the full pledge, with the names of those who have already signed it is below that.
[Dr. Ron Scates WRF Board Member, Interim Minister First Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) San Antonio, Texas]
http://www.firstthings.com/marriage-pledge
THE MARRIAGE PLEDGE
In many jurisdictions, including many of the United States, civil authorities have adopted a definition of marriage that explicitly rejects the age-old requirement of male-female pairing. In a few short years or even months, it is very likely that this new definition will become the law of the land, and in all jurisdictions the rights, privileges, and duties of marriage will be granted to men in partnership with men, and women with women.
As Christian ministers we must bear clear witness. This is a perilous time. Divorce and co-habitation have weakened marriage. We have been too complacent in our responses to these trends. Now marriage is being fundamentally redefined, and we are being tested yet again. If we fail to take clear action, we risk falsifying God’s Word.
The new definition of marriage no longer coincides with the Christian understanding of marriage between a man and woman. Our biblical faith is committed to upholding, celebrating, and furthering this understanding, which is stated many times within the Scriptures and has been repeatedly restated in our wedding ceremonies, church laws, and doctrinal standards for centuries. To continue with church practices that intertwine government marriage with Christian marriage will implicate the Church in a false definition of marriage.
Therefore, in our roles as Christian ministers, we, the undersigned, commit ourselves to disengaging civil and Christian marriage in the performance of our pastoral duties. We will no longer serve as agents of the state in marriage. We will no longer sign government-provided marriage certificates. We will ask couples to seek civil marriage separately from their church-related vows and blessings. We will preside only at those weddings that seek to establish a Christian marriage in accord with the principles articulated and lived out from the beginning of the Church’s life.
Please join us in this pledge to separate civil marriage from Christian marriage by adding your name.
Drafted by:
The Reverend Ephraim Radner
The Reverend Christopher Seitz
Laymen are welcome to sign to express support for pastors making this pledge. –Ed.
For all media inquiries regarding the marriage pledge, please contact First Things at 212-627-1985 or via email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
460 Pledges
In Agreement with Dr. Scates Permalink Submitted by Samuel Logan on Tue, 2015-05-26 09:50
I support Dr. Scates' recommendation and, although my name is not listed above, I have signed the pledge.
With Respect to Marriage, How Reformed Do We Want to Be? Permalink Submitted by John Williams on Wed, 2015-05-27 09:57
I've always thought that the key passage with regard to marriage/marrying is Genesis 24, the account of Abraham's instruction to his servant with regard to a wife for Isaac (we should marry into the family...the family of Christ). Or as the text puts it "from my [Abraham's] father's family"), how he would know who she was, how he should transact the covenant between Abraham and Bethuel regarding Rebekah, and how he should bring Rebekah to Isaac. On the journey back home, they see each other, Rebekah asks if this is her husband, the servant says, "He is my master." and she modestly covers herself. After learning from the servant what has taken place on his journey to Aram-Naharaim, Isaac brings Rebekah into the tent of his mother, Sarah, and marries her.
Does that look like anything we do in the Christian church today? So, there's our first problem...the definition of marriage as an act laden with prayer, between a Christian man and a Christian woman, and consummated with physical union. And, interestingly enough, the conclusion of Genesis 24 reads, "...and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death."
So what does the Christian church of today do, if there is no ceremonial responsibility? We might take the example of the wedding at Cana, and sponsor a celebration, along with the parents, of the union of their children, with six stone water jars full of wine.
How Reformed/Reforming do we want to be? It would certainly startle the secular world. And, the idea of teaching our children that they are going to narrow their field to believers-only, in terms of marrying? I have to say that would startle people within the church these days. As I remember my own experience, both Dotty and I were committed to marrying a Christian spouse, and our journey was mildly Isaac/Rebekah-like as we approached the altar, with the exception that we observed the convention of church marriage ceremony first and consummation shortly thereafter.
And, if the Isaac/Rebekah model would startle the church, what would the secular world make of it? I would guess that all non-Christian "marriages" between any sex combination, would automatically become civil, and the state would have to simply recognize Christian marriage as 1) legitimate and 2) eligible for the benefits of the state afforded to those joined in civil marriage. That would test discrimination laws...
Those are my thoughts.
John
An Important Suggested Revision to the Pledge Permalink Submitted by Dr. Tim Trumper on Wed, 2015-05-27 17:00
It goes without saying that the intent of the pledge is worthy, but a commentary to go with the following paragraph would be most helpful: "Therefore, in our roles as Christian ministers, we, the undersigned, commit ourselves to disengaging civil and Christian marriage in the performance of our pastoral duties. We will no longer serve as agents of the state in marriage. We will no longer sign government-provided marriage certificates. We will ask couples to seek civil marriage separately from their church-related vows and blessings. We will preside only at those weddings that seek to establish a Christian marriage in accord with the principles articulated and lived out from the beginning of the Church’s life." I get the disengagement, but why would we decline to sign government-provided marriage certificates, and then ask a couple to seek civil marriage separately from their church-based vows and blessings? Is the point to use the government as record keeper of who marries who, while not allowing the government a say in what marriage is. A little commentary on this paragraph would incline me more to sign the Pledge. The last sentence I get, and have a church use policy consistent with this.
Should the churches automatically accept civil marriages? Permalink Submitted by Thomas K. Johnson on Thu, 2015-05-28 02:21
There is another side of this discussion that I would like to see on the table at this time. Should the churches automatically assume that, because two people have a marriage certificate from a civil authority, that the churches should think the two are truly married by our definitions? In many jurisdictions, marriage is mostly a contract of limited duration, but we think of marriage as a life-time covenant. Such short-term marriage contracts are associated with frequent divorce and remarriage. When couples apply for membership in our churches, should we ask if they have a life-time covenant marriage? Even if they have a civil marriage certificate, is it possible that they are not married yet by our definitions? Can a heterosexual couple be married in the eyes of the state but "living in sin" in the eyes of the church?