The Church decisions on marriage
1988 B.B. Min. 203
14. Encourage Christian couples (especially childless ones) to foster homeless youth. As Sturgess himself says in Para. 8.45, p.138, “Throughout this inquiry nothing has been made clearer than this: if children, for one reason or another are removed from, or denied the shelter of a good home they are at grave risk of sexual abuse”.
15. Urge Ministers and Home Missionaries to give greater consideratioin to teaching Biblical principles on marriage and the family to:
(i) their own congregations on a periodical basis;
(ii) all applicants for marriage.
16. Urge Sessions to be especially sensitive to marital or familial difficulties within their charges and to make every effort to rectify such difficulties by the gentle use of the scriptures.
1994 B.B. Min. 199
10.(a) Commend the discussion paper “De-facto Couples Seeking Marriage in the Christian Church” (Appendix B) to all marriage celebrants within the Church for their consideration, and incorporate a copy of the paper in the record.
APPENDIX B
DE-FACTO COUPLES SEEKING MARRIAGE IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
What should our policy be? What is the consistent Biblical position? This paper proposes the answer and deals with common objections. The sad thing is that in our interface with the world the church does not have a consistent Bible-driven policy and because of this inconsistency, we lose integrity.
The following three observations are foundational to a Biblical response:
1) Sexual union before marriage is immoral. It is the sin of fornication.. Presumably this does not require proof here.
2) "De-facto" marriage is not true marriage! It is still fornication by another name. It is lamentable that so many "Christian" teachers defend the notion that although fornication committed once or twice or ten times is an immoral act which God promises to judge (Heb 13:4), yet if you decide to "shack up" with someone and continue the same activity on a more permanent basis, it has now ceased to be sin. Indeed, it has become the beautiful thing called marriage!
There are very weighty criticisms of that opinion. First, it makes not attempt to argue Biblically. The Bible plainly sees marriage as a solemn covenant (involving witnesses). De facto marriage seeks the benefits of a covenant without entering the lifelong obligations. Since marriage is a picture of the unreserved commitment of Christ to His bride the church, then de-facto relationships smear and dishonour that most gracious covenant, striking at the very essence of Christianity. Thank God that Christ did not enter into a mere de-facto arrangement to love us as His bride but with no firm commitment to keep it that way! Secondly, the philosophy of the case is impossible to defend. It is a sort of "metamorphosis" idea analogous to the grub changing into a butterfly. It is impossible to argue logically that the sin of fornication committed several times by two people living in different homes now becomes legitimate once they shack up together. A regular plan and determination to sin does not legitimize sin! Indeed, it aggravates it.
Moreover, think what advice we would logically have to give de-facto couples. Let's tell them that they don't need to get married because they are really married. Let's tell them they have no sinful immoral relationship to repent of, and that what they are doing is just as proper and acceptable to God as the union of a lawfully married husband and wife. And let's dispense with marriage services altogether. They are, on this basis, an expensive and unnecessary thing. What on earth is the meaning of marriage vows, commitments, and witnesses if, after all, you can just live together? We should reflect on texts like John 4:18 where Jesus tells the woman at the well that, though she has previously had five husbands, "the man you presently have is not your husband". A de-facto relationship is illegitimate.
3) The issue is not whether de-facto couples should marry. They can marry because marriage is a creation ordinance for non-Christians also, and a civil celebrant could legitimize their relationship. The real issue is whether the Christian church should marry them. In particular, should the de-facto couple be allowed to continue living together right up to their "wedding day"? Does the Church have higher standards than civil celebrants?
THE PROPER POLICYWhilever they continue to live in an immoral relationship, they show a very clear dishonour for the sanctity of marriage and they run foul of Hebrews 13:4: "Let marriage be held in honour among all and let the marriage bed be undefiled: for fornicators and adulterers God will judge". Therefore the church should counsel them accordingly, carefully and patiently explaining these things to them, not with the view of denouncing them, but of helping them to face up to conduct that dishonours God and marriage, and exhorting them to cease the de-facto relationship, and only if that condition is met should the church proceed to marry them.
Some objections answered
1. "They'll only go to liberal churches or to civil celebrants who'll do it anyway."
Notice that this makes no attempt to argue Biblically: it is simply pragmatic. We are not responsible for the unbiblical actions of other churches. Our policies on marriage and everything else are to be fashioned on what God's word says, not on how people will react. In any case, if we lower the Biblical standards we ourselves become more like the liberal churches! Shall we also baptize anything that moves, hold "blessing the pets" services, and even marry homosexuals? The liberal "churches" do those things too.2. "We have lost the chance to evangelise them: We didn't even open the Bible with them."
That is not true. The very fact of carefully explaining the Biblical ethics is opening the Bible with them. In explaining the sin of fornication we should explain also that Christ is a Saviour willing and able to forgive that sin too, and that He will do so on the basis of sincere confession of it (owning up to it) and repentance (turning away from it). That is evangelism! But if they refuse that offer, then they have once again refused Christ on His own gospel terms. If they still want to get married we should point them to a civil celebrant, exhort them not to take God's name in vain in some "church" marriage, but under no circumstances should we lower the standards of Scripture. We cannot provide Christian blessings to those who high-handedly flaunt Christ's ethical standards.3. "We are imposing Christian moral standards upon them before they're even Christians.
What standards do you expect the Christian Church to impose? (Non Christian standards?) Anyway, they are moral standards for all men, not just for Christians. If they reject Christian standards of marriage then they show utter contempt in coming to the Christian church for marriage! If Christian standards are not to their liking then let them marry without the church. How can we allow them to step immediately out of a relationship of immorality which dishonours true marriage and then waltz into the aisle of a church building the next minute and pay lip service to "THE HONOURABLE STATE OF MARRIAGE"? And how can we escape the charge of hypocrisy? In reality, it is the world which is imposing its standards onto the church!4. "Even if they separate their addresses they can still keep up a sexual relationship. You will not know, so what's the point?"
The fact that there are ways around the law does not argue for dispensing with law. The fact that there are limits to the maintenance of Biblical standards does not mean we surrender those standards. We have to do all that is reasonable, and thus we ask for their solemn word of promise that the de-facto relationship is truly ended. If they deliberately lie then they incite the wrath of God. We can do no more and any guilt beyond that is on their heads.5. Not all de-facto situations are identical. Do we require all couples to separate?
No. I am not advocating an inflexible policy. The following examples will help.1. Suppose there are children involved, either born to the de-facto couple or from a previous "marriage" by either partner. Separation would now involve extra factors, even traumas. I would not normally require separation, but I would require a sincere owning up to the sinfulness of their previous lifestyle and a willingness to learn of the forgiveness of Christ through faith. On that condition I would proceed to marry them with a clear conscience.
2. Suppose a plausible case is presented such as..."we are not cohabiting, only sharing the house together in order to economise living expenses." The male did not want to share a house with another male because of the appearance of homosexuality which he abhors, and similar reasons for the female. What policy should the church make? Again, great care should be taken, but it is conceivable that the case is not normal and, carefully handled, the overseers of the church might in good conscience permit the marriage.
3. Consider an elderly couple (now aged 75 years) who have been "shacked up" together for 50 years and now wanting to marry. I would not insist that they separate. The two old people have grown to depend on each other so much that separation would be traumatic. However, we should still insist on a genuine acknowledgment that their previous arrangement was wrong. If they will not agree with Christian ethics then let them go to a celebrant who does not require Christian standards: a civil celebrant.
6. This policy is hypocritical and unfair.
The absurdity of this claim is clear from two observations. First, hypocrisy occurs when a person is deliberately inconsistent: When what is done is not in line with what is believed or taught. The real hypocrisy occurs when the weak church claims to believe the Bible but doesn't apply Biblical standards in its interface with the world (be it for marriage, baptism, etc). The hypocrisy of the church amounts to it saying, in effect, "we don't approve of putting our stamp of approval on your immoral relationship, but we'll do it anyway. We don't approve of you coming and dictating standards and rules for marriage in the church, but we'll go along with it anyway. We in the church are subject to the rules of King Jesus, but we'll bend those rules in your case because you don't care two hoots for His authority." There is also breathtaking hypocrisy on the side of de-facto couples who come to the church requesting marriage without the slightest intention of ceasing their present dishonouring of marriage. It is analogous to a non-member of your golf club saying: "That's a nice picturesque little clubhouse you have there. We want to celebrate something there. We want your office-bearers to officiate at our celebration on your property at the date we choose, and by the way, we dislike the rules and standards of your club. We don't believe those things. They are too restrictive. So we demand that you change the rules, and give us what we want, when we want it, in your premises on our terms."
Second, as for the charge of "unfairness", consider the following case. Two communicant members of your church ask their Minister to marry them. They are regular, active, useful members. Everyone is excited...until the bombshell drops. It is discovered that they are having a sexual affair, though not living together. The evidence for the fornication is undisputable. Question: What do you expect the church to do? What is the Biblical responsibility of the Elders? Obviously, they would counsel the couple from Scripture and exhort them to confess and repent and desist. If they sincerely did so, the marriage could go ahead. If they refuse then not only would it be wrong to marry them, but persistence in the sin would disqualify them from the privileges of church membership. The Biblical steps of church discipline are to be followed, even to the point of excommunication if the couple become hardened in contumacy. How grossly unfair then if "outsiders" can live lives even more flagrantly sinful and still get married "in the church". That's where the unfairness really lies! It means non-members will have more privileges than members! This makes membership both meaningless and odious.7. This turns people off Christianity and makes the church irrelevant to people.
This wrongly implies that sinners are either "on" Christianity, or neutral about it. My Bible tells me they are "off" Christianity from their mother's womb. They are born godless, hostile, rebels against the rule of Christ. As for being "relevant" or not, the church has one main mandate, namely to preach the Gospel honestly and to exhort sinners to flee from sin and to Christ. Whilever we maintain Biblical standards we are relevant. We are showing them the way out of hell and into heaven. As soon as we cave into worldly standards and demands, we cease being relevant. We cease being the church. We become the world by another name.8. What about "common law" marriages?
"Common law" marriage means a couple have vowed themselves to each other privately, in which case it is sometimes assumed that it is not identical to a de-facto relationship, but that it is real marriage. But this is problematic. While it is true that a religious ceremony is not needed to establish a true marriage, the question remains: why would such a couple then approach the church for a wedding if it can be argued that they are already married in common law? If it is because of Christian convictions, then they will have no trouble meeting the Christian standards for a church wedding. If it is on other grounds, we have no business being a party to it. However, the truth is that according to the Bible, marriage is a covenant, and the essence of a covenant is oaths and vows made in the presence of witnesses. Without witnesses there is no proof of a covenant. If couples are serious about covenanting together as man and wife until death parts them, then let them put it in writing before sober witnesses who also sign the covenant deed. Why do they do it in private without documentary or human witnesses?Sadly, there are now civil ceremonies where the couple vow to be husband and wife "as long as we still love each other". What a difference this is to the Biblical model. If the church of God does not uphold the standards of marriage, who will?
With the earnest desire that the church of Christ would be faithful
To the glory of God in His holy bride
Peter Bloomfield.”
10.(b) Remind all Marriage Celebrants within the Church of 1989 BB Min.279.14:-
“Regard instruction in human sexuality to be primarily a responsibility of parents, to be given within the Biblical constraints of chastity before marriage and fidelity within marriage, to the exclusion of all other sexual practices and preferences.”
1995 B.B 74
3. Endorse the following responses –
b) that of the Moderator with the concurrence of the Clerk of Assembly and the Convener of the Public Questions Committee to the Queensland Law Reform Commission on the matter of “Defacto Relationships – Wrongful Death”.
ii DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS AND WRONGFUL DEATHS
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF QUEENSLAND
18 November 1994
The Secretary
Queensland Law Reform Commission
PO Box 312
ROMA STREET, BRISBANE Q 4003Dear Sir,
Re: De Facto Relationships and Wrongful DeathWe write in relation to the preparation of a draft report on the matters relating to "de facto partners and de facto relationships" with reference to the Moura Disaster, and in which you have called for comment, and, in particular, on the Draft Report's preliminary recommendations which are stated as being:
"1. The surviving partner in a de facto relationship should be able to benefit from an action for wrongful death.2. De facto partner should be defined as:
(i) a person who had a dependant child by the deceased person and who was living in a "de facto relationship" with the deceased person immediately prior to the deceased person's death; or
(ii) where there was no dependant child, a person who was in a "de facto relationship" with the deceased person for a continuous period of 1 year immediately before the deceased person's death.3. "De facto relationship" should be defined as the relationship between two persons (whether of a different or the same gender) who, although they are not legally married to each other, live in a relationship like the relationship between a married couple."
The Presbyterian Church of Queensland considers De Facto Relationships contrary to the mind of God, in His revealed Word, and therefore not a substitute for marriage.
We further believe that the more such relationships, and particularly such relationships between two persons of the same gender, are encouraged and facilitated in our society, the more we see a further erosion and breakdown of family stability and happiness.
We fully appreciate that as this matter has grown out of the Moura disaster, a highly emotive element has been introduced into the debate, and we would not wish to detract in any way from the sadness caused by the tragic loss of life, nor from the feeling of compassion toward all concerned and especially the children.
However, it is particularly for this reason of highly charged emotion that we believe it to be dangerous to seek to make a decision against this background, which will be established in law, long after the event, and which, if it follows the preliminary recommendation, will adversely affect the fabric of our society now and in the future.
Hon. Pastor D.T. Gallagher
MODERATOR
2004 B.B. MIN. ??
6. Write to the Prime Minister, with a copy to the Leader of the National Party, the leader of the Labor Party, the leader of the Australian Democrats Party, the leader of the Greens Party, and the media, commending him for his support for marriage as a life long covenant between a man and a woman.
2005 B.B. MIN. 98
4. Note the submission made by the Moderator, the Clerk and the Convener to the Senate inquiry into the provisions of the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 (COA, 16th December 2004, Minute 8).
2005 B.B. MIN. 98
18. Adopt Clause (2) of BB 2004 Minute 54 of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Australia as a declaration of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Queensland, with the deletion the words “of Australia” and the insertion of the words “of Queensland” in the declaration, so that it reads as follows:
We, the Commissioners of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Queensland, affirm our commitment to the Bible's message of the love of God for sinners and the good news of the forgiveness of sin, of a new beginning, and of eternal life. This is God's gift to those who repent of their sin and trust in the saving work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
We affirm our commitment to the Bible's message that those who experience this forgiveness and new beginning gladly seek to live a life that pleases God. This means choosing a lifestyle that conforms to God's standards, which includes abstinence from sexual intercourse before marriage and faithfulness within marriage. Marriage consists of one man and one woman in a lifelong and exclusive commitment.
We affirm our commitment to the teaching of the Bible that condemns homosexual activity and desire, and therefore absolutely precludes the ordination of those continuing to practice or endorse homosexual activity and desire.
We express our deepest regret at the decisions of other denominations that allow for the ordination of those continuing to practice or endorse homosexual activity and desire, and we declare this to be a most grievous departure from the Bible's message concerning the nature of sin and the repentance necessary for salvation.
We believe that Jesus Christ is the answer to the underlying problems of those who struggle with homosexual activity and desire - such as the problem of loneliness, the longing for loving relationships, the meaning and control of our sexuality, and the quest for personal identity. As our Creator-God Jesus Christ is also our Saviour and Friend who is able to restore our humanity at every level by healing us in our inner dispositions and social relationships.
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we call upon all those who profess faith in Him to stand with us in this commitment to God's Word and we offer any assistance that we are able to give to this end.
2006 B.B. MIN. 134
18. (a) Note the open letter from the Festival of Light Australia to the Prime Minister on Marriage, and record a copy of the letter in the record of the Assembly.
(b) Advise the Prime Minister, with copies to the Leader of the Federal Opposition, the Leader of the Parliamentary National Party and the Media, that the Assembly;
(i) Appreciates his forthright defence of marriage as “the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntary entered into for life”.
(ii) Endorses his action in 2004, in introducing an amendment to the Marriage Act 1991 to secure the definition of marriage as, “the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntary entered into for life”.
(iii) Endorses his recent action in preventing the ACT Civil Union Act 2006 giving same sex couples virtually the same status of marriage.
(iv) Requests him to further amend the Marriage Act 1991, to exclude the operation of State or Territory laws which provide a process for the establishment or registration of a couple relationship, including a same sex relationship, other than marriage.
2007 B.B. MIN. 99
11. Note that the Moderator, the Clerk and the Convener of the Public Questions Committee, issued a statement in the name of the Church, endorsing the stand of the Government introducing the amendment strengthening the Marriage Act 1961 to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life; and to confirm that unions solemnised overseas between same sex couples will not be recognised as marriages in Australia; and amendment of the Family Law Act 1975 to prevent inter-country adoptions by same sex couples under multilateral or bilateral agreements or arrangements. Also expressing concern that the payment of the “Baby Bonus” in a lump sum may not be in the best interests of all families, and that there may be a possible greater benefit if it is paid in instalments. (COA 19 April 2007, Minute 06/398).
14 April 2007
CL 06 Statement on Marriage (Refer Min. 99/11 above)
Prime Minister
Leader of the OppositionThe Hon Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition
Marriage and Family
The Presbyterian Church of Queensland supported the amendment strengthening the Marriage Act 1961 to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life; and to confirm that unions solemnised overseas between same sex couples will not be recognised as marriages in Australia, and amendment of the Family Law Act 1975 to prevent intercountry adoptions by same sex couples under multilateral or bilateral agreements or arrangements.
The Church is also supportive of the Government’s moves to direct the Governor-General not to sign into law the ACT legislation establishing recognition of same sex unions, as well as moves to counter recognition of same sex unions in Tasmania; as both of these actions undermine the status of marriage.
We are encouraged by moves by the Government to support and strengthen family life. However we are concerned that the payment of the "Baby Bonus" in a lump sum may not be in the best interests of all families, and that there may be a possible greater benefit if it is paid in instalments. If the "Baby Bonus" encourages one woman to keep a pregnancy to term rather than have an abortion, then it is worthwhile. The other concern in this area is that the short term financial benefits of having a baby, may encourage an increase in the number of unmarried mothers becoming pregnant.
Yours faithfully
Rt Rev Rudi Schwartz (Rev)Ron Clark
Moderator Clerk of Assembly