19 Brides and Grooms, 19 Cakes, One Ceremony
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.
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.
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.
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.
[BryanBice] 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.
"I pray to God this day to make me an extraordinary Christian." --Whitefield http://strengthfortoday.wordpress.com
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…
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?
[2 Kings 22:10-11]…Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king.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!
¶And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes.
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?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
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.
[Jay C] 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.
[Jay C] 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.
[Jay C] 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?
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?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
a quick look at http://www.concorddallas.org] 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?)
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?)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
…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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
Discussion