Sad about being fightin’ mad
As an elder, I would not vote to supplant the Sunday morning service with a wedding ceremony if another elder proposed this. Instead, I would recommend the church hold the ceremony in the afternoon.
That being said, I would not leave a church over that one issue. However, if this were one of a long string of unwise decisions made by church leadership, I could see this being a tipping point.
You’ve got the practical issue that a lot of young people are NOT getting good time off. They’re contractors, and their weddings are even more constrained than that of Jurgus Rudkis in The Jungle; where at least they had a reception the night before Jurgus had to go back to work. I know a couple that did a Sunday afternoon wedding at my church for that very reason, and a few families took care that they would actually get something of a reception.
Theologically speaking, a wedding has at least a sermonette and pictures Jesus’ first miracle and the coming marriage supper of the Lamb. I can hardly think of a better picture to present before the congregation when they come together, if that’s the way the happy (I hope and pray) couple wants it that way. Let’s be honest here; we have kids’ ministries Sundays, a fair number of missionaries whose ministries are more practical than theological/church planting and preaching…..I can imagine this being a huge blessing.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
This wedding included:
- A gospel presentation to open.
- Four corporate songs everyone sang together.
- Prayer
- A sermon
This is why I am puzzled about why this wedding was “not a worship service.”
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Tyler,
I’m sure there is a way to justify this decision, but I’d have to ask, is the decision worth the potential fallout? Surely, you knew this decision would cause considerable angst in your church, yet you went ahead with it (and without consulting your advisory panel).
So, this decision was the tipping point for 8 people (?) to leave your church. Now, you have an even smaller church that is demoralized because of your decision. Was it worth it?
If so, move on with your smaller congregation and stop bellyaching.
If not, acknowledge your leadership failure to your church, ask for forgiveness, and learn from your mistake.
Honestly, the fact that people place such a high value on the Sunday morning service should be encouraging to you.
Do the complainers (the 8 people) know the married couple? Were you officiating the wedding when it was scheduled at the original location?
It seems to me that this was a pretty unique situation and you were trying to help a couple in a jam.
My aim with this short article was to provide some remarks about unity, prompted by Latourette’s comments. I could go on to provide more and more context to satisfy inquiring minds, but that would likely not be time well spent. It would be impossible for me to fully express herein the nuances of my own particular context, or the support I’ve received from the lay leadership team and the church, or the individual grievances of the folks who left.
- I have received public and private correspondence from folks, all of them pastors with significant ministry experience, who have had kind words. I appreciate them.
- I have also received very unkind remarks, both public and private, that I ought to have expected. These are the things that happen when you post an article at a forum populated by current and former fundamentalists = you get expressions which do all they can to live up to the more unfortunate excesses of that movement.
My burden in the article was to note that unity is ephemeral, and so difficult to get. The more caustic comments in this very comment string are proof enough of that! So, I say, good day to y’all.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]My burden in the article was to note that unity is ephemeral, and so difficult to get.
That is certainly true Tyler. This time of year I am wrapping up the Spring semester classes. Course evaluations are written and it is amazing what people take away from what you say to a class. Its like people are looking for a reason to disagree.
Stay Strong!
[TylerR]This wedding included:
- A gospel presentation to open.
- Four corporate songs everyone sang together.
- Prayer
- A sermon
This is why I am puzzled about why this wedding was “not a worship service.”
My earlier criticisms notwithstanding, these things are judgment calls. You could say, “1)No wedding on Sunday,” “2)Shorter AM service followed by wedding on Sunday,” or “3)Wedding as Sunday AM service.” You chose the last. Fine. If you were my pastor, I would hope that the elders (or board) discussed this. But I would choose to trust you (or the elders) regardless of you choice for any of those. I might sit and think, “I would have done #whatever,” but I’m not going to get upset; I’m going to be content because I appreciate having leadership and I would want to encourage them.
I’m sorry, Tyler, but you lack that with these people. The straw breaks the camel’s back because the camel already has a really big load and frankly, it was gonna break sometime. Sorry that happened, but really perhaps it’s for the best (a conclusion I’m sure you’ve already made).
It’s easy to look at Paul’s affection for the Philippians (“[1:7] It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart”). And we look at the unity that held John Fawcett in his church for so many years and led him to write “Blessed Be the Tie That Binds.” And sometimes we think, Well, we should sing that song and we should unify like Paul and Fawcett!
But it doesn’t work that way. True unity cannot be gained by seeking unity. You can lament your horizontal relationship with the men/women in your church. But you can only fix it by working together on the vertical one with God.
[TylerR]I have also received very unkind remarks, both public and private, that I ought to have expected. These are the things that happen when you post an article at a forum populated by current and former fundamentalists = you get expressions which do all they can to live up to the more unfortunate excesses of that movement.
My burden in the article was to note that unity is ephemeral, and so difficult to get. The more caustic comments in this very comment string are proof enough of that! So, I say, good day to y’all.
While it’s clear that your course of action did not get 100% agreement in this thread, I fail to see anything on this thread (I’m not counting any private correspondence you may have received) that lives “up to the more unfortunate excesses” of fundamentalism. If you think that the fairly mild disagreement you have received here (and this site is supposed to be “iron sharpening iron”, i.e. “sparks will fly”) is additional proof that “unity is ephemeral,” I’m forced to conclude that you at least subconsciously think that such unity means agreeing with you and doing it your way, whether you have consciously thought about it in such terms or not.
Dave Barnhart
[dcbii] While it’s clear that your course of action did not get 100% agreement in this thread, I fail to see anything on this thread (I’m not counting any private correspondence you may have received) that lives “up to the more unfortunate excesses” of fundamentalism. If you think that the fairly mild disagreement you have received here (and this site is supposed to be “iron sharpening iron”, i.e. “sparks will fly”) is additional proof that “unity is ephemeral,” I’m forced to conclude that you at least subconsciously think that such unity means agreeing with you and doing it your way, whether you have consciously thought about it in such terms or not.
I would agree.
You make an arguably poor decision. Post about it. Get criticized about it. Complain about a lack of unity and congeniality because people disagree with your decision. Then exit stage left in a self-righteous huff.
Get over yourself.
[dcbii]
I’m kinda sitting here with raised eyebrows. I mean, perhaps this is true. But really it’s just human nature. I know this is often the case for me. Even professionally, I am an ophthalmologist and when I meet a medical student who tells me they don’t want to do ophthalmology, I’m thinking in the back of my mind, “What is wrong with you??”
Here at SI, over the last year, we have had members taking politcal opinions that I view as anti-christian and, frankly, asinine. Yet they are otherwise seemingly intelligent and devoted Christians. I quit SI for months due to this.
[Dan Miller]I’m kinda sitting here with raised eyebrows. I mean, perhaps this is true. But really it’s just human nature.
OK, perhaps “forced” was a little too strong. Maybe I should have said “That leads me to the conclusion…”. Just as you pointed out that unity does not depend on our relationships to one another as much as it does our relationship with God, I’d say that any unity we can have in this life also does not depend on 100% agreement on all things, or we might as well give up on it now as unachievable.
I see Christian unity as a work in progress, like sanctification. We will always be working on it without ever completely achieving it, until Jesus makes us perfect and sinless when we are with him.
Dave Barnhart
[dcbii]…I see Christian unity as a work in progress, like sanctification. We will always be working on it without ever completely achieving it, until Jesus makes us perfect and sinless when we are with him.
Yes - but also some matters of non-unity should be embraced as intentionally different. We need to learn to view those matters as ones that still allow us to welcome one another. So unity is preserved, even with some differences.
This is why I am puzzled about why this wedding was “not a worship service.”
My response is that a wedding is inherently a utilitarian function that is about something other than God, or at least something in addition to God. The focus is on two people, and that is what a wedding is supposed to be. There is no biblical warrant for a wedding service of any type, much less a worship service. A worship service is not utilitarian and it is about God. A lot of events can have those four things and not be a worship service.
When we call things like weddings “worship services,” we are imposing something and perhaps partaking of they “every square inch” philosophy which, while true, misses the point of corporate worship. Corporate worship is different than the “every square inch” philosophy. It is the body gathering as the body to worship God by focusing on him and his word. A wedding is a fine thing to do, but there is no biblical warrant I can find to do it as a church. If I am wrong about that, show me the biblical NT warrant for it.
Incidentally this is why the Regulative Principle matters. When the church gathers for worship, we are binding people’s consciences. We are forcing people to either do what we say and sin against their conscience or compromise (sin against) the unity of the body. We have no biblical warrant to bind people’s consciences with anything other than the commands of God in Scripture. The RPW is intentionally narrow. If I, as a pastor, am going to bind a conscience, I need to have warrant from Scripture.
In this particular case, you have taken a regular weekly worship service in which God has commanded certain things and have added to it something God has not commanded. For those who believe that weddings have no part of corporate worship (such as myself), you are causing them either to sin against their conscience by participating or to sin against the unity of the body by not participating. (And by participating, I mean observe and be a party to it as a witness.) So I can endure a wedding, believing that I am sinning against God by not worshipping in accordance with his commands, or I can sin against the body by walking out or by sitting and stewing internally.
If, on the other hand, we have the wedding after the service, I can joyfully participate in both.
I don’t think anything here has been uncharitable. When we post things, we should expect pushback and disagreement, even strong disagreement. It’s a discussion forum, after all. Let’s discuss.
[Dan Miller]Yes - but also some matters of non-unity should be embraced as intentionally different. We need to learn to view those matters as ones that still allow us to welcome one another. So unity is preserved, even with some differences.
I don’t really disagree with this. The ideal would be 100% unity. I understand that given our human state, and the fact that the Bible does not cover every possible application, there will be some differences, and those we will need to live with (“let each be persuaded…”) while expressing unity where we can.
Dave Barnhart
Discussion