Hi crazyheart:

Timely topic; I'm faced with that today.

A gay couple just bought a farm in our valley, and I know they would like to get married. Today I'll begin the process of asking our congregation, which is not an affirming congregation, to allow them to be married in our church. Our minister is willing, but last time the congregation voted on it, they voted against performing gay marriage ceremonies in our church. That was a few years ago. I hope they have changed their minds in the meantime!

And then what do you do if the church votes no Arminius?

I'm guessing wait for some of the congregation to kick off and be replaced by younger members.

I'll probably recommend to the gay couple to try the United Church in the nearest bigger town.

A church reserves the right to refuse to perform safe-sex marriages, even if other churches are doing it elsewhere in the country. But that will probably change someday.  The Catholics have held out and will continue to hold out because of their centralized power structure that is the Vatican.

If the minister is willing, should he respect his beliefs or the congregations?

In the United Church, the congregation makes the final decision.

Crazyheart wrote, "Why then are church boards, church councils and ministers able to say "no" to doing the service?"

In The United Church of Canada, the congregational service of worship - including worship services which contain rites of marriage - fall under the sole responsibility of the Session (or its equivalent: Board, Council, etc.) General Council has responsibility for the doctrine of the denomination (among other things).

This separation of responsibilities was part of the structural agreement we came to when the institution was created in 1925. To change it would take a remit.

Although I am in support of same-sex marriage, and have officiated at a number of same-sex marriages, I also have to recognize a) that it is the congregational court that has the ability to define this part of my ministry; b) that there are congregations who could argue from both rational and theological basis that same-sex relationships are wrong.

What we try to do, as a denomination, is to require that congregations and ministers who have decided that they cannot celebrate same-sex marriages direct couples to congregations and ministers that have decided they can.

At this point, I would have little difficulty saying to a congregation that my ability to officiate at the marriages of both same-sex and opposite-sex couples is a 'make-or-break' point for me.

You asked, "Should there be intentional study done in all churches who say "no"?"

My response - no. Should there be intentional study done in all churches, again? Probably.

You asked, "Should churches, boards and ministers say "no" to policies of the greater church?"

It depends on the policy. The people who put together the structure we have had some reasons for placing the responsibility for worship in the congregational court.

Where I have difficulty is that ministers who have made the decision that they cannot officiate at same-sex marriages have the right to refuse their Session (or its equivalent) lawful direction to officiate at a same-sex marriage; while ministers who have made the decision they can are not allowed to refuse the Session's direction that they can't.

You asked, "Or should churches bury the topic and forget about it."

Nope. Then, again, I don't think churches can. At some point in their lives, a beloved son or daughter of the congregation - one who has grown up with them, and loved them and been loved by them - is going to asked to be married to their same-sex partner. I hope that that woman or man will have the strength to place their love in front of the Elders of the congregation and say, "So - help me to understand - why can't I stand before you and before God in this place that helped me to be the person I am today, and profess my life-long love and promise committment to my partner?"

And I hope there will be others in the congregation that will stand with them when they do it.

BTW - this is my rambling on Sunday morning. Some things have not come out as clearly as I wished they could, but I don't have time to clean it up. Feel free to take it apart and toss questions my way!

Christ's peace - r

Even if Jesus were the minister?

I get the impression it doesn't matter if the minister is Latin American or not.

Would the minister be able to officiate at a wedding outside the Church, ie a backyard or lovely farm field, or does the congregation determine this as well?

This is the way I've been told by a good friend  that this was the case with thier UCC afilliated congregation is that they voted on it & it was majority vote for it not to take place & be held as policy within that chuch body of believers.

This is about all one church can do after all in this situation as to not hold a standard of any discrimination under Canadian Govm't standard as indescriminatory law.

I commend the UCC sandard to be within indescriminitory law under the land, as this is scriptual according to being under the authority of people put in this authority of the land.

This is why the word of God is so truthful to my eyes of understanding.

It just makes sense to me.

I'll tell you why,

If you are interested in being what being descibed here is my take on why this scripture so important.

You see, politics is a way of life on this earth, after all, there is politics involved in monarchy as well, what it really comes down to here folks is that politics is about weatlh & power, & these two ideals are as one in nature.

Wouldn't one agree?

Now where in the bible does it referance the seperation of church & state?

If someone out there can direct me to a passeage that would express a notion that in God's plan since the creation of man or should I say a monarchy or kingdom as it's referred to, where the seperation of church & state would be considered productive.

So this being referanced in scripture as a valid biblical truth statement, witten in the bible in the new testement, validating the actual union nature of the combining of the political world (kingdom) with the sprirtual world (church).

This was alway God's initiative in the way I see it.

I mean where did God initiate any seperation in genral, like what Arminius describes a seperation from a whole as he describes his look of God in his words.

We are indeed part of a whole here.

This difference with my message that what is Aminises take on it is,  I put a name on my God, the closest representantive of this God to me is Jesus the Christ, not my church body.

I could go on.

The topic here is that God was all about unification, & not division.

About restoration, of relationship & not seperation.

This is about relationship, there is no devision in relationship.

If there is division there is mistrust, & If we cannot trut in God, how can we hope to ever trust ourselves.

This is a principle that the kingdom of God is built.

I can hardly contain my joy as I write this!

It brings tears to my eyes.

To God their can only be one Kingdom, this is referanced from the beginning.

Even before time was a factor & we walked the earth.

When one tried to make a seperate kingdom for himself then tried to make God's Kingdom his, but failed for good reason.

Can one relate to what I'm saying here?

Well I just can't stop peaching can I ?LOL

Bolt

Good question CH.  This was my biggest question when I first started looking for a United Church to go to about 5 years ago thinking that all of the churches were inclusive (in terms of the big stuff) - based on what the UCC as a whole seemed to be saying about what it stood for.  I was wrong.

Whatever the politics and history are the reality seemed pretty weird to me as a newcomer.  In my experience (not being familiar with the system) it was pretty off-putting finding churches that had views that were so radically different from what the UCC as a whole seemed to be saying. 

I did find a church that was a good fit over time - by trial and error.

TL

Sorry my post doesn't follow the flow here - took too long to write.

TL

Yeah, that happens to me when I don't see a nother page beyond my referancing a post I would answer to in some way.

.

Yep...  this is what it comes down to I think.  The democratic structure in the UCC is great when the majority do the right thing.  But it leaves no room to argue against the moral stance of the majority.  The voters get what they want in terms of overarching policy.

It's not the New Testament approach, of course. Imagine if Paul had taken a poll in the church of Corinth on "What does spiritual life mean to you?" and that became doctrine.

But we don't want hierarchy either. (Have you seen LBMuskoka's hilarious link on this subject? : click here )

We're a hard bunch to please...

Personally I think our power to self-determine isn't  sufficiently checked by responsibility to scripture and tradition.  We can virtually do whatever we want.  Of course, increasing that responsibility makes for a harder path and leads to different kinds of problems, like the Anglicans are now facing on the gay issue. 

This is a real problem that has been well discussed in several churches.  I am writing the following as the mother of a daughter planning a same sex marriage next spring.  I also belong to an affirming UC congregation. 

What my daughter and her partner have decided to do is be married in a venue where the person marrying them has been licensed by the Government.   She will do a civil ceremony.  As her mother I will welcome all their friends and say a brief prayer . 

I have also been asked to escort her to her partner.

I know that this problem will continue to come up in congregations for a long time to come.  Everyone has different thoughts and opinions on it -

I think back to something I was told years ago - you can love them as your children but you don't have to love what they are doing - I'm endeavouring to accept them as they are - I can't change them -

Good for you Eileen. Can you tell me if the local UC would have performed the service?

Here is a little story. Plese realize that this a story about one minister - certainly not all.

 A new minister to a church ,I was at ,called a meeting when he first came for interested parties to discuss some foreward planning.

He talked about how HE was going to open the doors of this church to the community.

I saw the secretary quietly taking notes.

Then he said in a very obnoxious way -" And rest assured I will not be marrying same-sex couples." One man said "Well, I should hope not."

My eye was on the secretary who by body language showed that she was visably upset.

She tendered her resignation to the board after having a talk with the minister and she and her family never returneds. She told me ," After listening to the minister give such a positive statement about the community, for her, he lost all respect when with one sentence he eliminated a whole group of people who are the community.

I wonder how many other people are intimidated by a board who  follows a minister's  lead and a minister who does not show leadership. There might be many more in the congregation that feel like the secretary and whose voices are silenced.

It's actually *not* the congregation. It's the congregation's decision making body - the Session (or its equivalent).

Under current rulings by General Secretaries General Council, the Session (or its equivalent) have the ability to tell a minister that s/he is NOT allowed to officiate at a same-sex marriage in any venue. The Session (or its equivalent) does NOT have the ability to tell a minister that s/he must officiate at a same-sex marriage, if it is against their concience/theology/whatever.

One of those frustrating double-standards we hold in the interpretation of our denominational polity.

Christ's peace - r

Richard, this is a very screwy decision by General Secretaries General Council - methinks.

*wry smile* I agree, CrazyHeart. But the Appeal failed and the General Council's wisdom was to leave things the way they were.

Christ's peace - r

I personally think it's because the church (catholic especially) has a huge influence on the gov't. Look back at Canadian history, 200 years ago the church practically ran Canada. I think the gov't is affraid to piss the catholics off by doing something they don't approve of and lose their support.

      I would say that through you description of what took place there was sort of an attitude that was reflected with what was said & it seemed that attintude would no doubt rub one the wrong way indeed.

The attitude would indicate how poorly it was handled, perhaps to gain some political support in some way.

In genral, I don't really believe in democracy with regards to church policy per say, as much as I hold onto biblical truth to be the first & foremost priority held as a foundational faith statement & to delegate policy in the church.

But in genral I commend the act of scriptual obedience to the authorities with regards to what they see as discrimination.

But at the same time, where does the church draw the line with what is considered biblical truth?

To some, biblical truth says that gay marriage is not a viable marriage covenant, or that gay ordination is not a viable form of priesthood.

But to others it's the other way around, & that it's pefectly acceptable.

Are we not to accomidate those who believe that it isn't viable, as well?

I mean, I guess there must be a vote to determine where the church will stand on this very controversial issue.

Bolt

 [quote=crazyheart]

Why then are church boards, church councils and ministers able to say "no" to doing the service.? In my personal experience, some of these churches have never had open conversation with the congregation or their boards and committees about Same-sex marriage. It is a topic that hasn't been addressed since the 80's.

[quote/]

 i believe that gay couples have every right as heterosexual couples to get married, even through the church. however, if the priest is fundamentally opposed to marrying a same sex couple, how can the government force him (catholic) or the church force him, so i guess that is why he can say no- we wants our rights to be understood, but we have to understand the rights other people have to say no to gay marriage.   

I'm with Crazyheart on this one.  What was the rational if the minister was willing and it was not on church property?

I believe that in this world, the seperation of church & state is very nessisary.

This is so no law can be brought to dictiate docrinal issues within a church body & establish a policy that would conflict with what the church holds as biblical truth.

When the world authorities try to establish a policy that contradicts the freedom of religious expression & to dictate policies within the church this will be the start of the end.

As long as our beliefs do not break the worlds law, we are all good.

But what if world authority were to establish a form of authority to dictate policy with regards to how the world sees it should be, as opposed to what it brought forth through scripture & direction from the Holy Spirit.

The seperation of church & state will no longer be a seperation will it.

The corruptable law with all it's loopholes will corrupt the word of God.

The whore of babylon.

This seperation of church & state will no longer be seperate.

We will drink of the wine of her fornication.

We will be flustered by her flattery.

& allow carnal nature to rule in the representation of the alter & worship idols outside of the infulence of God & move in the direction of the harlot, & fornicate with her.

Instead of waiting, this passion that we long for, yet we are decieve in drinking & getting drunk with the wine of her fornication, instead of remaing sober, & waiting for the bridgroom to come, & partake in this marriage feast with us.

He will turn the living water that quenches thirst,  into a new wine that has great flavor that quenches & satisfies forever.

To accept wine from a harlot because of the fornication, drunk with the fleshly desires that only lasts a short time, instead of waiting passionately for the bridegroom, when the passion is complete & fulfilled.

We are in an adultress world.

This is how I see what is to come, along with referance to the scriptures in the book of Revelation & what is described within the church in the latter days.

Bolt

Separation of church & state. It's freedom of religion. You can marry only people active your church, only people of the same faith, only people from the same denomination, only people baptised a certain way, refuse to marry people who've been divorced, whatever you want.

Looks like it.

Even Jesus had to deal with stubborn old rams among his flock. But did those rams make policy for the flock? I think not. But we, the UCC, are a democratically organized religion, not a spiritual movement led by a charismatic leader.

If the minister married a gay couple outside the church, without the participation or approval of the congregation, this could not be stopped by the congregation.

If the congregation feels strongly enough against it, they can fire the minister afterwards.

Occupational risk, eh?

The congregations determines.  In fact it is congregational policy that officially determines if the clergy person officiates at weddings outside the church at all. ANd there is a theory that just as the SEssion or equivalent confirms the names of those to be baptised they also have the authority to approve who the clergy person marries.

In Ontario at least (and in other provinces to some degree) it is the role of working within a congregation that causes the province to grant my license to somlemnize marriages, not my ordination.  If I were working in some other line of work (inside or outside the church) I would have to give up that license.

Thank you both Richard and GordW. 

I did know that the congregation was involved in the allowing for the license - our minister recently retired and asked for permission from the Board to continue to perform marriages (it was all part of the very complicated process of a retiring minister who does not move away but is still very involved in the UC - you know "that" particular process ) but I wasn't aware that off site weddings were also Board decisions, probably because it has not been an issue in our particular church.

The double standard is the problem in Richard's appeal.  NOt the role of the Session to determine policy nor the right of clergy to make their own choices.  Just the double-standard.

Actually CH, I think a minister is being proactive in naming from day one where he/she stands on issues of being affirming.  More and more it is being discussed in interview settings.  In this conference pastoral charges are required to answer a question aroun their inclusivity as a part of the Joint NEeds Report.  Mind you thre was one that I read which named their marriage policy ("traditional" marriage only) and then went on to say that there was no reason why people in the listed categories would not feel welcome in their congregation -- seemingly without awareness of the disconnect [not that I was surprised knowing the congregation].  By naming it up front in the search process it is easier for clergy and charges to know if they are a gooc match.

Always remember that the UCC is not a monolith.  At heart we are still very congregational, and getting moreso in some ways.  That is both a strength and a weakness.

I don't know,Gord, but I think we are getting too insular.Worrying only about our tiny island.  Maybe that is how we will evolve - each a tiny place accountable to only ourselves and our building.

I'm curious

How long ago was that decision, and the appeal , re a minister being able to marry a couple , ie, not following their churches policy?

When a couple is married by a minister, is there a record of their marriage on the churches rolls or other records, regardless of where the marriage occurs, due to the affiliation of the minister?

Note:  The one part I really don't like about this item, is that it feels like an employee relationship -- ie, the church setting the policy by which the minister works, as compared to call -- the minister being called to perform the work of their call, within the umbrella of the united church of canada . 

I suppose I understand that as a spokesperson for the congregation, the minister is somewhat entrusted with that role when it suits and when it doesn't.  For sure, the minister should be up front in an interview about his or her views, and find a church able to move in that direction.  That said, I would hope some groundbreaking ministers would wade into churches that need some nudging toward inclusivity.

I don't like it that they can't go with their conscience freely, but I can see the rationale (flawed though it is).

A point:  Don't make a particular couple the test case guinea pig!! Deal with this before someone shows up asking, or they become part of a political quagmire at a happy time in their lives.  We as congregations should be openly dealing with this honestly & productively, so that people can come and get a simple answer, no politics involved.

amen ,Birthstone

That'd be great, Birthstone - and in many congregations it has (and will) happen that way.

In others, it will be because a member of the congregation wants to get married. And then folks will have to deal with the people realities, as much as the 'theoretical' ones.

Christ's peace - r

Hi, Pinga -

The Decision was approximately 6 years ago, the Appeal 5-ish.

Though I am only certain for Ontario, Manitoba and BC, I believe that this answer is true for the other provinces: Yes, when a minister officiates at a marriage, we must record that marriage in a register kept by the congregation.

Well... the denomination has the ability to define how a minister will live out their Call within that denomination. That's the part of ministry personnel's promise to accept the discipline of the Presbytery, and part of how we develop a ministry that is in relationship with the community.

The United Church of Canada believes that Call is tested not only by the individual, but also by the community of faith. I've met people who are definitely Called to ministry - but not within The United Church of Canada. If we're ministry personnel within The United Church of Canada, we've agreed to live by the polity and practices. That doesn't mean we can't challenge them. There are a number of processes in our system for doing that - but if the challenge fails, we need to accept the practice or decide we can't be part of the denomination any more.

Christ's peace - r

Thanks for clarifying that, Gord!

RichardBott wrote: "The Session (or its equivalent) does NOT have the ability to tell a minister that s/he must officiate at a same-sex marriage, if it is against their concience/theology/whatever... One of those frustrating double-standards we hold in the interpretation of our denominational polity."

EZ Answer: A double standard is one principle applied differently to different groups or contexts.  But the United Church polity -- and the ruling on your failed Appeal --avoids a double standard by upholding the more fundamental principle from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (including the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling on Reference re: Same-Sex Marriage).

#1 - The Session can prohibit a minister from conducting a same sex marriage

#2 - The Session cannot require a minister to conduct a same sex marriage

#1 extends, as you noted, from polity re: the Session's authority.  The Session's ability to prohibit same sex marriages under its jurisdiction extends from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 2(a), 15(1).

But #2 also extends from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 2(a), 15(1).

To compel a United Church minister to perform a marriage, by any degree of force or threat of consequence, would constitute a double standard under the Charter.

But you knew that.  ;)

Indeed.

Bolt

Hey, EZed -

*grin* Yep.

While I support the ruling (until such time as the polity changes *bwahahahahaha*), I still wonder why it is all right to compel a United Church minister to not perform a marriage, by any degree of force or threat of consequence.

Either way, its compelling that individual to act in a manner that is opposed to their religious belief / conscience / call / (fill in the blank).

One of the tests I've always wondered about is what would happen if a UCCan minister serving in a congregation that did not allow them to officiate at a specific kind of marriage (say - individuals who are previously divorced), was serving as pastoral charge supervisor to a congregation that allowed such an officiation, and asked the supervisor to officiate. Would the policy of the congregation with whom the minister was in a Pastoral Relationship take precedence?

Interesting stuff - in theory.

In practice, its one of those things that can make ministry hell on wheels.

Christ's peace - r

Please note - I don't disagree with a UCCan minister's ability to refuse the direction of the Session to officiate at a same-sex marriage (or any other kind of marriage, for that matter).

I just believe that the opposite should hold true - a UCCan minister should have the concomitant ability to refuse the direction of the Session to not officiate at a same-sex marriage (or any other kind of marriage, for that matter).

Sauce, goose/gander thing.

Christ's peace - r

RichardBott wrote: "why it is all right to compel a United Church minister to not perform a marriage, by any degree of force or threat of consequence... Either way, its compelling that individual to act in a manner that is opposed to their religious belief / conscience / call / (fill in the blank)."

EZ Answer: The Supreme Court of Canada recognized that the compelling goes both ways.

The decision prevents the minister from compelling the Session to accept a same-sex marriage on church property.  The Court addressed this issue of use of sacred space:

"59 The question we are asked to answer is confined to the performance of same-sex marriages by religious officials.  However, concerns were raised about the compulsory use of sacred places for the celebration of such marriages and about being compelled to otherwise assist in the celebration of same-sex marriages.  The reasoning that leads us to conclude that the guarantee of freedom of religion protects against the compulsory celebration of same-sex marriages, suggests that the same would hold for these concerns."

This recognized that individuals of the congregation would be compelled to "assist" if the congregation's sacred space is used.

Mrs. Squirrel is calling me right now, so I'll have to get back to you on your follow up question re: off-site marriages in the morning.

I get that, EZed  - but the appeal (and where I'm still struggling), was around ministry personnel officiating at marriages that were off of congregational property - someone's garden, down by the river, etc.

The church properties are the congregation's "home". It makes sense that they can define - within lawful bounds - what happens or doesn't happen there. (*wry smile* - Ok... not the manse.) While I might enter into a process of debate with the hope of changing their mind (say, around the opening of communion fellowship to children), I do that as part of the leadership. If the Session says, "X is our policy" (as long as it is within their area of responsibility and does not contravene The Manual), then I live with it, or I move on.

But I was not ordained a minister of Word, Sacrament and Pastoral Care of Z Congregation. I was ordained a minister of Word, Sacrament and Pastoral Care in The United Church of Canada. As a denomination, we support a number of forms of marriage (eg. marriage of individuals previously divorced, marriage of same-sex couples) that individual congregations have policies which forbid participation. When am I a minister of The United Church of Canada, rather than a minister of Z Pastoral Charge of The United Church of Canada? (Under our current polity, as it relates to marriages, the anwer to this question is never.)

*sigh* I understand the reasoning - our current understanding is that a minister's ability to officiate at marriages is derived from the pastoral relationship. It is only by being in a pastoral relationship with a specific congregation that Conference requests a license to marry on our behalf. Because we're required to use a congregation's marriage register to record the marriages, to use their books while officiating at a marriage that controvenes the Session's policy is akin to using their space. I get it. I'll support it, even as I disagree with it.

But it still feels like there is something 'off' when we've got some ministers with the ability to refuse a Session's marriage policy, while others are denied the same ability.

My "T" can't figure out how to explain the dichotomy I see. All I've got left is the "F" stuff.

Yeah, at this point in my life, this is purely theoretical - though it wasn't when I appealed the GenSec's ruling. And, knowing how important this is to me, I will not enter into a pastoral relationship with a congregation that has a policy that would not allow me to officiate at same-sex marriages. (Or a pastoral charge that would not allow children full participation in communion. *wry smile* I seem to be getting more 'make-or-break' points as I age.)

Thanks for chatting this through with me. I didn't realize how much this part of the balance between minister's call / congregation's call continues to bother me.

Christ's peace - r

Crazyheart,

To be fully human is to realise that with every step, every moment of every day, all of reality is in an endless love-affair with you. Every step is a longing caress. The ineffable, which is everywhere, wants to eff you always.

That is what those who really care, do with each other.

Now, it is easy to forget this.

In this world of appearances.

It is also easy for a Believer to hide behind their belief, or behind the wants of the collective, of the Tribe.

To forget their role in the generation and continuance of their Belief.

"G_d says it" or "Jesus tells me" I see as an abrogation of the deep and powerful responsibility all Believers have.

To think that one's Beliefs come from "Out There" only continues the sense of powerlessness...of not being able to change...of "I was only following orders."

That isn't to say that everyone enjoys everyone else's lifestyle. Not at all. But an acknowledgement that others have different lives, different points of view.

But we are all human. Life is a process of becoming human.

Or, as the immortal bard once wrote:

"What is it that separates human beings from the so called lower animals? Well as I see it, it's exactly one half dozen significant things: Humor, Imagination, Eroticism-as opposed to the mindless, instinctive mating of glow-worms or raccoons-Spirituality, Rebelliousness, and Aesthetics, an appreciation of beauty for it's own sake. Now, since those are the features that define a human being, it follows that the extent to which someone is lacking in those qualities is the extent to which he or she is less than human. Capisce?"

(Tom Robbins' Fierce Invalids Home from Hot Climates)

Just a Self-writing poem,
Inannawhimsey

"Give unto GOD what is GOD's and give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's" is generally looked at as JESUS' endorsement of the seperation of church and state philosophy.

Crazyheart I can't tell you for sure because 1. My daughter isn't a member of the church and 2. Her partner is a non-believer, so I never even spoke to my minister about marrying them.