Marc blogs at Marc Bewley. From 2008 to 2014 Bro. Marc has served in the metro Detroit area through the BSCM and NAMB as a Church Planter Catalyst. He currently serves in Chattanooga, TN as a Missions Pastor at Dallas Bay Baptist Church.
In 1986, I was a twenty-five year old church planter in northern Michigan. A couple from down the street, who had been attending our new church, approached me and asked me to perform their wedding. Fortunately a generous friend had given me a copy of Criswell’s Guidebook for Pastors as an ordination gift.
I quickly turned to the wedding chapter and learned how to perform a wedding. It was to be my first. During the ceremony I used the phrase, “By the power vested in me by the state of Michigan and before God and these assembled witnesses, I now pronounce you husband and wife. You may kiss your bride!” Since 1986, I have performed hundreds of weddings in Michigan, Indiana, and Tennessee.
In 1999, my family and I moved to the mission field of Bogota, Colombia, South America, where I pastored the Bogota Baptist Chapel, which was the only English-speaking Baptist church in Bogota. Before too long, a lovely couple came and asked me to perform their wedding. I looked through Criswell’s book but to no avail. How would I perform a wedding in Bogota, Colombia?
I asked around and found my answer. I think the procedure that applied in Bogota is the one we need to adopt in the United States after the SCOTUS ruling. After asking around, I found out that I couldn’t legally perform a wedding in Bogota. The couple would first have to go before a notary to have a civil ceremony. Then, a day or two later, I performed what we consider to be a church wedding.
I learned that in Colombia the wedding ring goes on the right hand and that I no longer said, “by the power vested in me by the state.” Instead, I said, “by the power of the God I serve, I pronounce you husband and wife.” The state and I were no longer partners in instituting a marital union. In time, I found the procedure to be freeing. I had no forms to sign and no license to return to the courthouse. Instead, I simply conducted a beautiful ceremony, read Scripture, and shared a wedding sermon. Standing before me, a young couple pledged their commitment of marriage “before God and these assembled witnesses.”
Was I wrong when I joined with the state to do their “work” for them in performing marriages? No, I did the norm, and I saw it as part of my ministry. But in today’s climate and in light of recent changes, I have decided that moving forward, I am going to require a civil ceremony before I perform the religious one. Using this system simplifies my role. My part is biblical. It is clean cut. Some may say I have “abandoned” the playing field and allowed the culture to win. My response is that working for the state should have never been my field anyway. “I wrestle not with flesh and blood” but with a higher battlefield with the “King of kings” as my battle commander and VICTORY is assured.
Jesus was faced with a dilemma about paying taxes. The Pharisees had Him cornered. How did Jesus respond?
“Let me see the coin,” He said. “Whose picture is on this coin? Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and render unto God that which is God’s.”
As I look at the county’s marriage license and look at my Bible, I am struck by the fact that the license belongs to the state. I can no longer in good faith be the state’s stand-in. Instead, I will take my Bible and lovingly perform a religious wedding ceremony. By the power of the God I serve, I will pronounce them husband and wife. Fulfilling my role in such a manner honors the God I represent and keeps the state out of my church.
P.S. A petition in agreement may be signed here: http://www.firstthings.com/marriage-pledge
Evidenced by a spate of articles here and elsewhere is that clergy are becoming aware of their dual role in weddings. Some will opt out of the state licensing system but most will not. Although I have used the provocative phrase “agent of the state” in regard to clergy signing state marriage licenses, the fact is that there are a number of areas where the wheel of church rubs against the wheel of state. Most SBC clergy would have difficulty requiring couples to marry twice, since most churches expect their minister to perform weddings. At one level the minister would… Read more »
I think this is a tool to keep in the garage.
At this point, I’m not afraid to say, “In accord with the laws of the state of Iowa.” However, in a few years, we may need to go to something like this.
Agreed. I don’t really understand the conflict of conscience at this point. I don’t have a problem with the members of my church serving in capacities that make them in a sense “agents of the state.” Similarly, I really do not see the problem with me in some sense being an “agent of the state” as long as the state is not seeking to coerce my conscience. If that begins to happen, it will be necessary for us to step away. I am already married so it doesn’t affect me, but I would be annoyed if I had to go… Read more »
If my church were in Oregon, I might be thinking differently.
I truly feel if we take this stance, most couples will just stick with the civil ceremony or will opt to choose a pastor that has a different opinion of things. Why can’t we look at this in a different light anyway? Instead of me acting as an “agent of the state” I see it as the state recognizing the authority of God in this particular manner. As a citizen of the USA where freedom of religion is part of our guaranteed rights, I also acknowledge that the state has the right to recognize the authority of other religions or… Read more »
This is the way they do it in Venezuela too. My wife was the matron of honor at the wedding of our Venezuelan contact and they did two ceremonies like this: one civil, and the other with the church.
I think the point is the separation of the church and state. I am not talking about as individuals and our country. Far too long we have said that the U.S. is a “Christian” nation. It is not and becoming less “Christian” as the years progress. We will lose our tax exempt status one day and be treated like every other corporation in the U.S. (I’m not wanting this but it WILL happen). We will then understand what the church has experienced in most other countries and has experienced for thousands of years. No special status at all. Will people… Read more »
“I’m not wanting this but it WILL happen” Yes you are wanting this to happen because you already believe it will. If you are praying with this attitude your prayers have no value because you have already said “it will happen.” This attitude (even if you didn’t mean it) is exactly the problem so many have today. Who says that this nation needs to continue in its course to secularism? The people of God who disappear from politics, being civil-servants, and retreat into the church, that’s who. Now, we may end up there anyway, but we will certainly end up… Read more »
Why would you think it is okay to call Marc a liar?
Nate, this kind of behavior is not necessary.
Dave, I’m not call Marc a liar, but the quote is what it is. I was thinking and hoping that Marc might clarify himself because I don’t really think he thinks that. If he does, then he has already conceded defeat and there is no use to pray or fight because concession has already been made. Moreover, it’s not just Marc. I see this particular type of comment often and I don’t really think people are thinking through what they are really saying. Again, I’ll let Marc reply but I would hope what he really meant was, “I don’t want… Read more »
Nate, you can’t call someone a liar then say, “I’m not calling him a liar.”
Marc says, “I’m not wanting this to happen.”
You say, “Yes, you do..”
You are saying that he is NOT speaking the truth.
How about talking to people with respect?
Quote him properly Dave. Marc said, “I’m not wanting this but it WILL happen.” The quote is what it is. He is saying (in all Caps) it WILL happen. How then, can he not want it to happen? He can’t see the future (as far as I know), therefore he has already conceded there is nothing he can do about it. Hence, he can’t really not want it to happen. You can’t have it both ways. Again, for about the 3rd time, these types of statements coming from Christians are disheartening. It’s one thing to say the times are horrible,… Read more »
Marc can speak for himself, but it is my job to call people on disrespectful behavior.
I can say, “I don’t want the Patriots to win, but I think it’s gonna happen.”
You accused Marc of not speaking truthfully – ie, of lying. Disagree with him. Fine. But try to discourse within the boundaries of basic kindness, please.
Dave, I did say I apologize if I disrespected Marc. What is somewhat mind-boggling is that you keep misquoting him. You said, “I can say, “I don’t want the Patriots to win, but I think it’s gonna happen.”” What you seemingly keep failing to realize is that your statement DID NOT say “I don’t want the Patriots to win, but they WILL.” There is a huge difference between “I think” and “they will”. Your statement and his are not the same. I would like to hear Marc on what he really meant. As I keep reiterating, if we as Christians… Read more »
I’m not parsing words with you.
Treat people with respect, Nate. Thank you.
Miller, Pardon the interruption….
“I can say, “I don’t want the Patriots to win, but I think it’s gonna happen.”
I don’t know how that statement could possibly be considered a lie – it has certainly proven year after year over and over to be a true statement!
Sometimes in this world, cheaters win.
It’s kinda deflating.
oh brother.
A Yankee fan identifying another team as cheaters?
So, if deflating footballs in, what has only been proven to be in one half of one game, that was not even close (and after the footballs were “re-inflated for the second half, they played even better), constitutes “winning cheaters”.. – does multiple seasons of drugging and cheating constitute calling into question all wins that took place during the career of the drugging cheater Yankees? 😉
I’m afraid your brain has turned to grits. Can you name one time that the Yankees, as an organization, have been accused of cheating. I can talk about the ethical lapses of the Patriots, it’s a long list. They are pretty much well known as a cheating franchise. The Yankees have had A-Rod – but they worked WITH baseball and actually pulled for harsher penalties, not lighter. I’m fairly used to it, but the argument is weak, tired, old and demonstrates a lack of understanding of sports. “Well, you are a Yankee fan and so…” The Yankees have won 27… Read more »
Can you name the baseball team that hasn’t had anyone suspended for or implicated in steroids?
And the evidence is that deflating footballs was a regular practice for the New England Cheaters.
But how many of those Yankee wins were achieved, at least in part, due to drugging/cheating players?
If we are going to call franchise cheaters because of a couple of events and all….how many Yankee players have drugged and cheated over they years?
again…the “manipulation of the balls” has been proven to have happened in one half of one game that they won handily and played even better in the second half with the “properly inflated balls.”
no, the speculation is that – the evidence only shows one half of one game.
Oh Wow, take a day off and miss everything. Nate, in no way do I propose we huddle up in our churches and do nothing. Having spent almost nine years in Bogota and eight years in Detroit, MI. I am all for getting into the playing field and going “no huddle” and running some plays. To be even more blunt in my opinion, which my wife doesn’t think I can be more blunt, I grew up in the “Moral Majority” age when a lot of churches put too much emphasis in all things political. Christianity has suffered a back lash.… Read more »
I am in no way a Yankee defender, but Tarheel’s inconsistency is once again baffling. He says that the Patriots only deflated footballs in one game which they won handily. Then he accuses the Yankees of “multiple seasons of drugging and cheating.” Ummm…a drug test only proves that you took steroids, not the duration or extent of your usage.
In fairness Dave Miller, you know that the Yankees were pushing for a stiffer penalty so they could avoid paying A-Rod’s contract, not because they wanted to take a stand for what is good and right.
The good news is that in the end, we will all be Yankees fan.
Adam,
Dave Miller implied that the New England Patriots are cheaters because of a couple of isolated prove that events – I simply made the point that there have been over the years not just a rod but multiple Yankee players who have been proven to have been drugging and cheating – so by his standard if the couple of proven events against the patriots make them the “New England cheaters”. – then what do multiple proven instances against the Yankees make them by ace Millers own “logic”?
Difference: Yankee PLAYERS took steroids – like every other team. Name a team, their players took steroids.
The New England Patriots TEAM has cheated – repeatedly. Spygate. Deflategate. It’s not a secret that the Patriots are not an ethical team. They cheat. They only ones who deny that are Patriots fans.
If that’s heaven, then all this hope and joy stuff is a farce! :-O
You couldn’t get me to warm up to a Yankees fan if you cremated us together.
Um, Miller – Deflate gate The only people who have been proven to have been involved or not players nor could be considered “the franchise” they were small time employees and “possibly” /”maybe” ( according to the official NFL report) one player – so again by your logic doesn’t that absolving the franchise itself of the cheating scandal? Or do single events make an entire franchise cheaters? As for spying – again a couple of coaches – Not everyone – so by your logic is the whole franchise cheaters? Or does a single event or a couple of events make… Read more »
“The good news is that in the end, we will all be Yankees fan.”
Speak for yourself. I am going to heaven.
Amens, Adam. Amens!
Marc, thanks for replying. I hope you can understand my angst with your statement, “I don’t want this to happen but it WILL happen.” I also understand Dave didn’t want to parse words, but grammar matters. Your statement, grammatically, is highly tenuous since you are making two very separate statements linked together, and therefore, especially with the CAPS, it seemed you had landed on the second portion and not the first. I hope you can also understand my statements about many Christians who have already surrendered and have retreated into the church and left the political and secular arena to… Read more »