Pastor’s challenge yields mass nuptials
[The Pastor] challenged singles in the audience who are living together but not married. He invited them to meet with him after church to discuss honoring God by getting married. He said the church and volunteers would pay all expenses – which he said totaled just under $10,000, about $500 per couple. Forty couples responded; 19 completed counseling and will marry Sunday.
Truly,
I would just come off sounding legalistic...but, WOW! A church that has 19 couples, some living together (are they sleeping together as well?) outside of marriage...*looks around for the Holy Spirit's presence on this one*.
These are honest-to-God genuine believers? Shades of Corinthians here...o.0
Dave.
Sola Scriptura, both mentally and physically.
That means no other books about Bible interpretation on my shelf, sorry...
1 John 2:27-29
From their events' calendar: http://www.concorddallas.org/index.cfm/PageID/1184/index.html
Return to Purity Conference-11/13
The “Return to Purity” Conference will encourage youth to commit to abstinence until marriage while following God’s plan for their life. Parents will be equipped to encourage and support their child’s commitment. The “Return to Purity” Conference starts Nov.13.
And stuff like this makes me wonder, as a single person myself -- what's the point of waiting? People don't seem to mind this kind of sin as long as you eventually make it right, even church people. Maybe it's abusing the extravagant grace of Jesus (which I admittedly abuse myself sometimes, to my shame).
I'm waiting, at age 31, as a never married person, and I'm a rarity. I've never been divorced, never had a baby out of wedlock, etc. And yet the people around me (good Christian people) who've done these things usually end up getting married again and having a happy, fulfilling union.
It's definitely my devil's advocate talking, but why not follow in their steps? Seems to work for them!
(yes, that's definitely devil's advocate. I'll keep waiting 
I don't think we should look at it as them saying it was OK to be shacked up. Just the opposite. The effort to get them to marry says "It's not OK to shack up." If they thought it was OK, they'd have left it alone.
So... I'm all for waiting, of course, but should these couples have continued to fornicate? What else can a repentant sinner do but move forward? I'm trying, but I can't see much of a downside to this.
A church that has 19 couples, some living together (are they sleeping together as well?) outside of marriage...*looks around for the Holy Spirit's presence on this one*.
I didn't see anything that said they were believers, though they may be disobedient believers. Sometimes believers sin too ... and do it in big ways. In a big church that is growing (which this one is judging by it's list of staff), it would not be unlikely at all to have 40 couples unmarried and living together. In a small church of 100 people, that sounds huge. In a church of several thousand, it's not that many. You might have hundred first time guests every Sunday.
In a church that is growing and reaching people, you are going to have these problems. What do you do? The very fact that the pastor brought it up means they are not accepting it. They are calling on these couples to do what is right.
People don't seem to mind this kind of sin as long as you eventually make it right, even church people.
What's the alternative? Not make it right? Of course you wouldn't say that, and I agree. How do you make it right? It seems in most cases you make it right by getting married, don't you? The fact that the pastor brought it up means he does mind this kind of sin, and he provided a biblical solution, it seems to me.
People don't seem to mind this kind of sin as long as you eventually make it right, even church people.
What's the alternative? Not make it right? Of course you wouldn't say that, and I agree. How do you make it right? It seems in most cases you make it right by getting married, don't you? The fact that the pastor brought it up means he does mind this kind of sin, and he provided a biblical solution, it seems to me.
I think there is always a danger of being the 'older brother' when someone who has been living a 'clean' life sees the Big Bad Sinner repent and the subsequent rejoicing and 'fuss' that is made over them.
It's like "What- don't I get a cake too for being a Good Person?"
I actually had a problem with this attitude when my husband repented of his alcoholism and adultery (note this all you single women dying to be married-marriage is just a brand new set of challenges and solves nothing). He spent 6 years out in the pig pen while I kept the kids in church and remained faithful and loving (well, most of the time I was loving- I'm only human). It seemed that when he got right, everyone was happy, and life just went on like nothing happened. Even though things were much MUCH better in our home, and I was rejoicing, I really wanted him to grovel at my feet and have to do dishes for a year.
Let's hope and pray that the counseling these couple submitted to helps them make it, because they already have strikes against them. Don't studies show that shack-up couple have a higher rate of divorce? And whatya' wanna' bet that there are some kids involved in this equation who now have a married Mommy and Daddy?
Here's to hoping they live Happily Ever After.
I wonder how many of these couples were church members. Also, what about church members (if there are any) who refused the offer? What is happening with them. I had a couple attend an evangelistic service last night at our church. I found out that they are living together. The girl claims to be saved. The boy does not. We gave them both the gospel and are praying for their salvation. However, I could not allow a couple living together to be granted church membership, despite any profession of faith. It would send a terrible message to the other young people in the church.
I also applaud the decision - it seems creative, utilitarian, and Biblical all wrapped into one. We've all been places where there's an elephant in the auditorium, as there seems to have been here, and the pastor seems to have reached a balanced conclusion that calls out the sin for what it is, brings people to a point of decision, and most importantly, doesn't leave them hanging there. I've heard many sermons on the evils of thus-and-so but almost never heard it followed up with a "now, folks, if any of you are living in this sin, I would like to announce that we will be offering free one-on-one counseling for you; just email or call the church office to set up an appointment." (I know it's not that simplistic. But a lot of times I've felt like the shepherd just whipped the sheep and wandered off to Ryan's for the afternoon, leaving the sheep on their own to recover however best they know how, rather than taking the time to actually help them.) And he removed one of the biggest obstacles - finances - to allow for a smooth road to recovery for those in that sin.
I'm with Aaron - if there's a downside, I can't see it.
The Rev. Bryan Carter's eyes will not be tricking him Sunday when 19 couples face him to exchange vows in a mass wedding.
Concord Missionary Baptist Church and volunteer sponsors are paying all expenses, covering gowns, tuxedos, wedding bands, decorations and 19 cakes. The church has provided counseling and is exploring overnight hotel stays for brief honeymoons.
This largess of commitment results from the sermon series, "The Real Flava of Love," which Carter preached at the church, where he is pastor.
Look, I may sound like the original older brother here, but I'm not really sure that this is a great idea. The pastor means well, that's for sure...but is it really the job of the church to provide physical and financial incentives for people to do the right thing? Sinners who repent and get married aren't any closer to the Kingdom of Heaven simply because they got married - if they aren't saved, then it doesn't matter what their marital status is.
[edit]
I understand the expense - my wife and I had a tiny wedding that we could only afford because a lot of her friends helped us. But all we really had to do was shell out for the marriage license and the rings. If a person is serious about dealing with their sin and obeying Christ, I think that they'd find a way to get this done, big and fancy wedding or not. Frankly, I think that the pastor should have addressed the materialistic presuppositions that were causing them to delay the wedding ceremonies rather than just offering to pay for them 'so they can be right'.
This situation, IMHO, says more about the sorry state of preaching and the church than it does about anything else.
Maybe a good thing, but I would be curious to know what was covered in prenup counseling. I get the impression the immorality of the living together is proclaimed by the pastor/church, but were the 19 required to own it? What part did repentance play in all of this? How many of the 19 took the church up on the offer primarily because it gave them an inexpensive way to get a church wedding--you know, the "Hey! A free wedding!!?? Sounds like a no-brainer to me!!" response? [I wonder how many of the guys talked the girls into it!! Seems like a guy response, doesn't it?] Does signing on a dotted line after an unrepentant immoral couple recite their vows cause the sin to go away? If the sinful heart hasn't changed, it will surely manifest itself in unseemly ways after the knot is tied.
As with most of these novel ideas, time will tell what the real fruit will be--for the church, the couples, and the youth.
The pastor means well, that's for sure...but is it really the job of the church to provide physical and financial incentives for people to do the right thing?
Whether the pastor is providing incentives (a "value-added proposal" to use the appropriate buzzwords) or simply removing obstacles seems pretty subjective and would ultimately rest on his motives and the motives of the people taking him up on the offer. To me it's kind of like an allowance. When I was younger the only way I'd sweep the floor or do the dusting was if there was some cash in it, and the more I did the more I got. As I matured I started doing those things for a variety of other reasons - to help out, because they needed to be done, because it was expected of me. But that didn't happen until I grew up a little. Maybe the couples in this church fit that model. I do find it interesting that just under half of the folks who responded to the initial challenge finished the counseling and went through with the marriage. I have no idea why 21 couples dropped out but if it was a month-long counseling session you almost have to wonder if at least some of those were in it just for the free wedding and decided it was too much work.
Lots of unknowns, and ultimately it'll take a few years to see how wise this decision actually was. But given this or the alternative of just railing against cohabitation and not providing any suggestions on how to get out or make it right, I suspect most people here would make the same decision. Might not have been the *best* decision but it was *a* decision that maintained the momentum of the preaching series, and if the pastor is smart he can direct the momentum as needed.
:edit:
Hopefully I didn't just reopen the "I'm not mature enough to get married" debate again...
Pastors face situations "dealt to them".
You had in this church a number of couples living in sin. The question is "What does repentance look like for the sin of cohabitation (fornication + sharing a household)?"
I suggest that for people who are committed to each other, that marriage might just be the legitimate outworking of inward repentance!
About the "financial incentives", $500 to cover a wedding looks more like sincere help than an incentive.
I had a couple who had been living together for a long time get married within the last year. They did premarital counseling and seperated for a time. I can't tell you the joy of when they made this right. This Sunday, Lord willing they are joining the church. A couple of weeks ago she taught the kids in our weekly kids meeting. It was has been a long and sometimes messy process. But God has been good!
Pastors face situations "dealt to them".
You had in this church a number of couples living in sin. The question is "What does repentance look like for the sin of cohabitation (fornication + sharing a household)?"
I suggest that for people who are committed to each other, that marriage might just be the legitimate outworking of inward repentance!
About the "financial incentives", $500 to cover a wedding looks more like sincere help than an incentive.
Actually, the article says:
Concord Missionary Baptist Church and volunteer sponsors are paying all expenses, covering gowns, tuxedos, wedding bands, decorations and 19 cakes. The church has provided counseling and is exploring overnight hotel stays for brief honeymoons.
My other point is that when you read their comments, it seems [to me anyway] that they had no idea that what they were doing was wrong even though they were attending the church for a while. If there was a couple living together in my church, I'd want to individually talk with them and lay out all the options/possibilities if they planned to continue attending or become members [although I really can't afford to chase anyone away right now ;)]. Seems to me that is what any pastor should want to do, not wait until it got so bad that he had to address is it from the pulpit.
Look at the comments in the article:
Denise James said she and her fiance, LaPrie Townsend, were amazed as they sat in the audience. They live together but planned to marry later. They had followed the series, but the challenge shocked them.
"We looked at each other and our jaws dropped," James said. They whispered to each other and decided to meet with the pastor.
"We wanted to marry but didn't have the resources to do it like we wanted to," Townsend said. "All I can say is I'm grateful."
Raymond Adams and his fiancee, Heidi Mathis-Bayley, said Carter's offer stunned them, too. They said living together helped them financially, but they wrestled with the morality and planned to marry in the future.
"I knew immediately," Mathis-Bayley said, "but we couldn't discuss it sitting there." Outside at the car they decided to go back and talk with the pastor.
"I wanted to make a sound decision, and I wanted to be obedient to God," Adams said.
I think that's what rubbed me the wrong way -- this girl is clearly saying that a lack of money was the reason she didn't get married. But that's not a valid excuse -- surely she could afford the $50 fee (or whatever) to get married down at the courthouse. Would she have continued in sin if this money wasn't offered? Possibly. And I wonder if any of the other couples had similar mindsets.
I definitely don't want to be like the older brother of the prodigal son, but I just feel like something's a little off here.
edit: Also, I wonder what message all this would send to the teen girls in my church.
with the available information, I think this is a good thing. We don't have access to the particulars, but it doesn't surprise me that in a very large church, people can attend for quite awhile and the elders not know how many couples are shacking up. In today's world, people live together and think nothing of it. It seems intuitive to them that you take your potential spouse for a test drive.
As for the pastor and his preaching, it's possible he covered topics such as the sin of fornication or the sacredness of marriage, but this challenge is very specific, and IMO left them without the usual excuses.
I think it was good that the church required counseling as a prerequisite. The fact that these couples followed through indicates that they are at least that serious about the situation. And if this church's actions can bring some awareness amongst folks about defiling their relationship by co-habitating, then that could be a nice side effect.
Maybe a good thing, but I would be curious to know what was covered in prenup counseling. I get the impression the immorality of the living together is proclaimed by the pastor/church, but were the 19 required to own it? What part did repentance play in all of this? How many of the 19 took the church up on the offer primarily because it gave them an inexpensive way to get a church wedding--you know, the "Hey! A free wedding!!?? Sounds like a no-brainer to me!!" response? [I wonder how many of the guys talked the girls into it!! Seems like a guy response, doesn't it?] Does signing on a dotted line after an unrepentant immoral couple recite their vows cause the sin to go away? If the sinful heart hasn't changed, it will surely manifest itself in unseemly ways after the knot is tied.
As with most of these novel ideas, time will tell what the real fruit will be--for the church, the couples, and the youth.
Yes, these would be my concerns as well. I can't imagine that an evangelistic church would merely attempt to help unsaved people to conform morally and not address the real issue at hand, which is simply manifesting itself in this particular sin. The fact that only 19 of the 40 couples completed the counseling makes me want to assume they did address the heart issues pointedly. If they did in fact lead these folks to a victorious understanding of salvation/repentance, what a sweet occasion that wedding day must have been!
Overall (and as Susan said), with the info provided, it sounds like a great thing. A charitable effort on the part of the church to help people move forward.
What comes to my mind is the account given to us in 2 Kings 22. The people of Israel had not heard the Word for a long time. But...
...Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king.
¶And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes.
Of course, we do not know the previous condition of the couples before they started attending the church. But once they started attending the church, did all knowledge of all things Scriptural instantly find it's way into their hearts and minds by some supernatural osmosis? Probably not. And since the pastor recognized a problem, he went to Scripture and taught the people what the Bible said about fornication. If I preach a sermon on a particular issue at my church, I am amazed if even one person responds at the invitation. To have 38 people respond positively in such a public and humble way to the teaching of the Word must have been such a blessing to that pastor!
In our church, we have encouraged unmarried cohabiting couples to marry, and the result has been disasterous. We have also encouraged unmarried cohabiting couples to marry, and the results have been a blessing all around. Faithfulness to the Lord and His Word is the key. We have helped them in every way we could think of not prohibited by Scripture.
If we witness our whole lives, and *one* person accepts Christ, we consider it a life well spent.
If a pastor teaches on sexual purity, and 38 people respond positievly, what is the problem?
If we pragmatically pay for the weddings of church members who are living in sin, are we not denigrating marriage and the name of Christ?
This was done over the course of a month, and only half the people that initially came forward followed through. This hardly strikes me as a pragmatic "here's $500 to go get married and technically get yourself out of sin" situation. I don't think we should consider this on the same level as a drive-thru "Chapel O' Love" in Las Vegas.
If we pragmatically pay for the weddings of church members who are living in sin, are we not denigrating marriage and the name of Christ?
We have a friend (who, incidently, was married in the pastor's office prior to being allowed to join the church) who can find every reason imaginable not to be in church on Sunday. The bottom line is that, if he *wants* to be in church, and if he understands the imperitive nature of attending church, he will find a way to be there. What we have been doing is pointing out to him how weak his excuses are in comparison to the imporatance of his wife, kids, and self being in the worship service.
I don't see anything in the offer to help cover the expenses (not a cash layout, but helping get the things expected of a wedding in our current society) other than helping the couples work through and eliminate all the spurrious excuses for not doing right.
If we pragmatically pay for the weddings of church members who are living in sin, are we not denigrating marriage and the name of Christ?
Frankly they are just making the most basic of wedding expenses.
If we pragmatically pay for the weddings of church members who are living in sin, are we not denigrating marriage and the name of Christ?
When God's Word is preached, we expect people to repent, but then are we going to say "You got yourself into this, now get yourself out of it"? I don't see that as honoring God's example of mercy and forgiveness either, and I think we need a balance in this area of 'tough love' and being generous and gracious.
I think there are times when someone who has been living ins in, whether unrepentantly or in ignorance, needs to experience some hardship on their way back, so to speak. There are natural consequences of sin that are sometimes unavoidable and probably even necessary. But if we are to lift up the hands that hang down and comfort the weak, then lending a hand or providing some ease while they make changes in their lives is a great expression of how God has lifted each of us out of our miry clay.
The problem IMO is that some of us fall into the trap of thinking that our clay was not as miry as other people's clay.
Gang, this isn't about me putting myself on a pedestal or not wanting to help them do right.
If a person is truly convicted of their sin, they'll want to make it right. That means that they'll do whatever it takes to make it right - including going low key on the wedding celebration in order to have it sooner if they're living together [in sin].
If an engaged couple came to you and said that they decided to slash their wedding budget in order to get married faster or to save money for a home, we'd all be applauding them. Yet there are couples here who won't do the right thing because it's too expensive. Can we not agree that is a problem? This is a heart issue that goes far beyond external trappings.
There are lots of ways to applaud and celebrate them for getting their hearts right and acting accordingly. Funding their weddings is not a good way to do so.
@ Rev. Karl and Jim - Does the church REALLY need to pay for tuxes, bands, cake, and even [possibly] honeymoons? I mean, come on. People get married all the time without those trappings...think of the GI's who married prior to going to war at a Justice of the Peace. Were they any less married because there was no organ music or traditional bridal gown?
a quick look at their website makes it clear that this is a large church. i think a lot of people are coming to this story with all their small church assumptions. i didn't find any attendance figures, but i would be surprised if it was less than 5000. it's not that hard for me to imagine 30 couples that come 2 or 3 sunday mornings every month in a church of 7 or 8 thousand without any church leader knowing they're living together. the pastor and/or other leaders may have had an impression that some people probably were living together, so they made a plan for a special sermon series. they're still looking for people to sponsor couples, so i'm guessing there were a lot of couples living together that they didn't know about.
I think Jay's got a point. On one hand, they're doing something right and that's cause for celebration, and the church encouraging that by helping w/expenses is laudable. On the other hand, if someone is truly repentant, do they need $500? If the $500 were missing, and they didn't go ahead, what does it suggest about their motivation and their repentance?
But... in the end, getting married is still the right thing to do and encouraging folks to do the right thing can't be bad.
So the thing is great by itself but I can see a potential downside now.
And Mike Harding had a good point earlier about membership and discipline.
There's a balance to be found between responding negatively to sin & responding positively to obedience... and some lines to be drawn. But they're not easy to identify so I'd like to err on the side of saying "way to go" to these folks.
(To illustrate the fact that there's a line there, what if they asked for a show of hands: "How many of you will wed for $500?"... "OK, how many for $1000?" ... "How about $2000...any more takers?" This is obviously not what they did here, but human nature being what it is... what's further down that road?)
...how many of the 19 couples lived separately until they got married?
There are far too many unanswered questions to this situation before I can call it "good" in any sense. I appreciate Jay's comments, too.
All of this strikes a little too close to home. Earlier this year, a girl in our church was dating a non-member guy...then they started living together, planning to get married in the near future. When I confronted her, she asked to be removed from the church membership. For a host of reasons, I was opposed to the marriage, as were her parents. They then went to the "large-church" pastor in town (an evangelical stripe) and asked him to perform a ceremony (after they lived together for 4 months). He said they'd have to come for counseling & asked to meet with her dad, too. The dad expressed his extreme opposition to the wedding, as did her mom via email. He never called for my opinion, even though he knew she had been a member of our church. He agreed to do the ceremony, making no effort to confront them about their sin & the need to repent of it...never insisting that they live separately until the wedding, etc. In talking with the parents, it seemed he was eager to get a couple of new members...he agrees to do lots of weddings with few if any strings as a way to "reach out" to people & get them into his church.
So I'm reading this novelty already being weary (and wary!) of ministers who marry live-ins as a supposed remedy to their sin...as if the vows & ceremony serve as an "atoning sacrifice" for the months of sinful behavior. Incidentally, I would not consider the marriage an expression of repentance unless I also saw other, prior tangible expressions -- such as one of the two moving out & living with parents, a friend (same sex, of course!), or even a compassionate church family.
Looks like I started something here.
Let me clarify my position:
I don't believe that the sheepfolds of churches are the appropriate place for "visitors" and unbelievers to be invited in...period. IMO, preaching should be done outside the church (to the unbelievers) and teaching inside ( to the believers ). With that in mind, I have a hard time coming to grips with the fact that 19 couples who were living together in sin are Spirit-filled believers. Are they saved? Dunno...
Also, I'm not here to argue the seeming benefits or drawbacks of offering an "all-in-one" approach to the so-called mission of the church...which, incidentally, is firstly to edify believers. I am here however to see who sees what I see in the Word, not who "relates" to the problems or needs in society. I'm not trying to be unkind, either...just Biblical.
Starting at square one, I'd say there's plenty of inner troubles in that church if there's 19 couples with that particular problem. I'm sure that there are many other things that trouble believers in general such as smoking, drinking, pornography, etc. Reminds me of the passage," The sins that so easily beset us"
Am I a sinner? You bet. Has the Holy Spirit brought me out of many bad habits? Again, you bet.
But one thing I stand adamant against: The idea of getting ANYONE into the sheepfold who isn't a sheep.
Getting them into his church shouldn't be the first priority; rather, getting the Gospel to them, then getting to know them if they demonstrate the Holy Spirit's inner working should be-- BEFORE offering the hand of fellowship. Getting people to do the right thing if their nature hasn't been changed is temporary at best.
I know many of you disagree with my way of thinking, but believe me, I've been on the other side of the fence. I've seen tons of people make confessions and nothing lasting come of it. Perhaps this is a case of the "cart before the horse"? I sure hope not.
Dave.
Sola Scriptura, both mentally and physically.
That means no other books about Bible interpretation on my shelf, sorry...
1 John 2:27-29
As I noted on the Co-Habitation thread, Texas is one of the states that allows Common Law marriages. If these couples met the requirements, then they have a legal state recognized relationship. However, I can see the pastor and his church seeking to solemnize these relationships.
So, I say to many here that are not from Common Law states, baken Sie auf, bitte.
Maybe I can give you some context to the situation, especially in regards to the finances. Right now I am discipling 3 young men in their early twenties who, just a few months ago were living with their girl friends. Over time they became convicted that they needed to either move out of their sinful situation or get married. Unfortunately, to move out of their situation costs alot more money....money they didn't have working a low level job while trying to go to school. Neither did their girlfriends, who also had a child with each of them before God transformed these young men's lives. They couldn't move back home, because of the destructive home lives that each of them come from (for example, one of them has 25 brothers and sisters from his Dad who was with some 11 or 12 different women, including his mom)
None of them had any savings, so they couldn't save enough at such a short notice for a deposit on an apartment and first month's rent, let alone all of the other expenses that are part of living independently. In the end, our ministry (Urban Transformation Ministries) helped these young men get an apartment together from a generous landlord (and donor) that reduced the rent and deposit in order to help them afford to do the right thing. Part of the discipleship for these men includes personal goal setting and financial budgeting so that they eventually will be in a position to get married and take care of the family that they've already created. In each of these cases, they were not ready to marry their girlfriends. There is a ton of baggage that we will be addressing soon through Christian counseling as they get closer to marriage.
I am not convinced that the financial issue is necessarily about giving them perks so that they get married. Rather the alternative (which I explained above) really is more expensive, messy, and time-consuming and I don't know if most churches are prepared to count the cost in coming along side the urban poor in situations such as this. I think this church understood that many of these live-in couples perceived themselves in a catch-22 position and they were willing to help them solve this dilemma.
My issue with the church is more about questioning their "one-size-fits-all" mass-marriage solution to the live-in problem. I guarantee that some of the couples are not ready for marriage and need some separation because of the emotional baggage and sin issues that comes from a live-in situation. If the pre-marital counseling results in a few of the couples realizing that they are not ready for marriage, will the church help them find an alternative solution that also addresses their financial dilemma?
I know with one of my guys that when he moved out of his girlfriend's apartment, he knew that because of all the baggage, he would have to start the relationship all over again. Both of them agree that neither one of them would have been ready to get married when he moved out several months ago, and their relationship now is better than it has ever been since they've known each other (he has even begun saving for a engagement ring).
@ Rev. Karl and Jim - Does the church REALLY need to pay for tuxes, bands, cake, and even [possibly] honeymoons? I mean, come on. People get married all the time without those trappings...think of the GI's who married prior to going to war at a Justice of the Peace. Were they any less married because there was no organ music or traditional bridal gown?
Does the Church really need to pay? Nope! Not at all.
But if a person in the church feels led of the Lord to honor - yea, even to encourage - their obedience and humility by offering to supply some of the stuff they would have wanted at their wedding, but now did not have the $$ for, I don't see any harm in that.
Also, what might be "right" for their church might not be acceptable or accepted in another church. (Kind of like English translations, styles of Church music...) What was contributed by the church (in addition to the contributions of the volunteers) might have been a fraction of what that church has set aside on a weekly basis for benevolent assistance to their congregation.
As many have said, we don't know all the tiny little details. What we do know is that men who have been called by God to minister His Word sought His will in this matter, and did what they felt God was leading them to do. Is it prohibited by Scripture? Nope. So who are we to say they were right or wrong? "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own heart...."
Since we don't have a lot of information about this, I'm shooting from the hip on what's available. I think the concerns about motivation are valid, but I don't think we realize how 'normal' some unBiblical practices have become. Bro. Keith pointed out that common law marriage is legal in TX. I imagine some folks hadn't given it much thought until this challenge was proposed, or they may have struggled some inwardly, but managed to quiet those tugs of conscience with the same bucket of cold water we use when we're rebelling against our conscience or the Holy Spirit.
When someone gets saved at our church, we give them a Bible and some study materials to help them get started in the right direction. I suppose we could say that someone who was really saved should buy their own Bible and study materials. There are bookstores on every corner, and I've even seen Bibles at the Dollar Store. But the point isn't the money that a Bible costs- it's the church seeing and filling a need.
I didn't read this method as attempting to provide financial incentive for people to do the right thing. I thought of it as a church challenging people who were living in sin and then removing ANY excuse for them to not make it right. Obviously not everyone wanted to make it right, but the ones who were sincere followed through on the counseling. It would be nice to know more about what the counseling entailed.
It also isn't a surprise to me that 40 couples that attend such a large church are shacking up. I would have a problem with it if they were members, however, because I'd wonder about the requirements for church membership. I didn't see anything on the website about that.
First, what is the real sin here? Is it sex outside of marriage? That is very simple to show biblically that it is wrong. Or is it living together? I don't know of any biblical reason why this would be wrong. There are very obvious reasons why living together without keeping your hands to yourself is so extremely unlikely. But it could be done for a time, and could therefore address the issue of not moving out between the time the decision was made, through the counseling, and up to the wedding. (Admittedly improbable, but very possible)
Second, I live in Iowa where there is common law marriage. I have never met a person who has a common law marriage who acknowledges that they are married. They certainly have not moved in together hoping to wait out the seven years (I think that's now long it is) until their relationship is officially recognized by the state. My understanding of the law is that it is to entangle losers who string women on for years and then want to leave with no obligation to the woman they have kids with and who is now unable to provide for herself and kids. That is just the observations I have made of common law marriages. It may be different in different states.
Jeremy
I emailed Ross Wyche at the Concord church. He is the Associate Pastor of Membership & Couples. I asked him-
Were these couples members of the church, or attendees?
Was assurance of a salvation experience part of the counseling process?
Why do you think 40 couples came forward, but only 19 committed to the counseling?
His answer-
...the majority of the couples are members, however there were a few from neighboring churches. We stressed the importance of having a relationship with Christ (salvation is a requirement for membership at our church). Most of the couples that didn’t move forward with the wedding are planning on taking our pre-marital class in January, some of the other couples decided they just weren’t ready.
So there- it seems that there is definite validity to the concerns that have been voiced in this thread. What follow up questions would ya'll recommend be asked of Pastor Wyche?
Maybe I can give you some context to the situation, especially in regards to the finances. Right now I am discipling 3 young men in their early twenties who, just a few months ago were living with their girl friends. Over time they became convicted that they needed to either move out of their sinful situation or get married. Unfortunately, to move out of their situation costs alot more money....money they didn't have working a low level job while trying to go to school. Neither did their girlfriends, who also had a child with each of them before God transformed these young men's lives. They couldn't move back home, because of the destructive home lives that each of them come from (for example, one of them has 25 brothers and sisters from his Dad who was with some 11 or 12 different women, including his mom)
None of them had any savings, so they couldn't save enough at such a short notice for a deposit on an apartment and first month's rent, let alone all of the other expenses that are part of living independently. In the end, our ministry (Urban Transformation Ministries) helped these young men get an apartment together from a generous landlord (and donor) that reduced the rent and deposit in order to help them afford to do the right thing. Part of the discipleship for these men includes personal goal setting and financial budgeting so that they eventually will be in a position to get married and take care of the family that they've already created. In each of these cases, they were not ready to marry their girlfriends. There is a ton of baggage that we will be addressing soon through Christian counseling as they get closer to marriage.
I am not convinced that the financial issue is necessarily about giving them perks so that they get married. Rather the alternative (which I explained above) really is more expensive, messy, and time-consuming and I don't know if most churches are prepared to count the cost in coming along side the urban poor in situations such as this. I think this church understood that many of these live-in couples perceived themselves in a catch-22 position and they were willing to help them solve this dilemma.
Thanks for that, Joel. Quite a different angle on it than I was seeing.
Susan: Thanks for getting some hard facts into the discussion. Can't personally think of anything else I'd want to know from them... unless maybe, in light of Joel's comments above, it might be interesting to know what the financial situations in general are. But I'm assuming these weren't high-income NY-penthouse-apartment types who could have sold a spare Mercedes to pay for the wedding.
Jbarkema,
You are right that living together is not the sin, but rather sex outside of marriage. The problem is that the sexual temptation is so strong that inevitably the couple gives in to their desires. With the three men that I disciple who were in these live-in relationships, they tried to abstain from sex in their live in situations, but after about three weeks to a month, they kept giving in to their sexual temptation. So far, all three of them are doing much better dealing with sexual temptation........but the constant speaking the word of God in their lives on this issue (accountability) is the core of what has helped them. Removing them out of their environment, though very necessary, was only the first step of a long process........
Cohabitation is also a sin. Rom.13.14. Also, a man is supposed to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, not leave his father and mother and attempt to set up some sort of celibate pseudo household with a gal friend. Add in all the general calls to wisdom in Proverbs and other places. Rooming with someone of the opposite sex is unwise in the extreme.
http://www.concorddallas.org
| Cold Fusion Guy | 4BYA.info | FaceBook | Doctrinal Statement | Biography | My testimony | Anatomy of a malicious lie