Marry or else – church

A Gore church has given one of its members an ultimatum to marry her de facto partner or leave him:

A 72-year old Southland woman has had her 30-year church membership revoked because she lives in a de facto relationship.

The Calvin Community Church, a Presbyterian church in Gore, has revoked the membership of one of its long-term members because her relationship with a man she lives with was “at variance with what is expected of a member of Calvin Community Church”.

The woman said she was told “out of the blue” she had to either marry her long-term partner, leave him, or no longer be a church member.

She was still able to attend the church, but she has declined to do so because “they have discussed my private life around the table”. . .

The woman and her partner, who have both been married previously, have been together for eight years and have been living together in Gore for three years.

As a Christian, she said she would prefer to be married to align with her beliefs.

But her partner was not ready and it was not anyone’s place to force someone into marriage, she said.

“There is only one judge and that is God. Why break up a happy relationship. I’m very happy living with him, I’m too late in life to go through a relationship upset.”

“I’ve thought about it and prayed about it and I’m happy with my relationship.”

Elders at the Gore church disagreed.

In a letter to the distraught woman, senior pastor Keith Hooker said those who wished to be counted as members were responsible for upholding the church’s standards in accordance with scripture.

It was the church’s view living unmarried with a long-term partner did not meet those requirements.

“You have said that your partner is not willing to marry you. Although being married is outside of your control it is, however, your decision to remain in the relationship,” his letter says.

“While we respect your right to live in a de facto relationship, it is quite clearly at variance with what is expected of a member of Calvin Community Church.” . .

Cohabitating without a marriage certificate used to be called living in sin.

This church still believes it is.

She’s still welcome to worship but not be a member.

It’s the church’s right to do that – is it right to do it?

 

 

 

 

11 Responses to Marry or else – church

  1. pukeko60's avatar pukeko60 says:

    Well, it is the correct doctrinal position to take. She is allowed to worship, but her membership is in abeyance. The correct process would be for a friend to discuss it, then two friends, then the elders with her…

    … and if she does not change, then church discipline.

    For if the rules are not enforced, they are not rules.

    Like

  2. Brown's avatar Brown says:

    I think the church is wrong although, maybe, not as far as their rules go. The bible implies a marriage contract but does not, in my view, require a secular contract such as the govt wants you to have – its far more serious commitment than that. I wanted to marry my wife without the state part and it would to us have been a serious ceremony with a pastor in the presence of my christian and other friends where vows with biblical overtones were exchanged. The paster wimped out so I had to do the secular bit that I don’t much care for.

    In this case my view is that the couple are married in a christian sense (assuming hubby does what he’s told as in all marriages) whether or not there’s a bit of paper.

    Like

  3. fredinthegrass's avatar fredinthegrass says:

    Only in Southland. While not denying the right of the Church to uphold its views/rules, I am staggered that this attitude still pervades these days. Surely a relationship held together by love and care for each other – especially in ones twilight years, is something to treasure.

    Like

  4. Mr E's avatar Mr E says:

    I believe that is terrible treatment of a community member.
    I say they join a new church. And other members that disagree with the churches behaviour do the same.
    Problem solved.

    Like

  5. rayinnz's avatar rayinnz says:

    The Church can do it what it likes but it is hard to justify its position from a direct ruling in the bible and it would seem to go against the New Testaments suggestions

    Like

  6. Mr E's avatar Mr E says:

    Ray
    New Zealand has a Human Rights Act. The church is not exempt.

    Here is brief and a link to the law.

    21 Prohibited grounds of discrimination

    (1) For the purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are—

    (a) sex, which includes pregnancy and childbirth:

    (b) marital status, which means being—

    (i) single; or

    (ii) married, in a civil union, or in a de facto relationship; or

    (iii) the surviving spouse of a marriage or the surviving partner of a civil union or de facto relationship; or

    (iv) separated from a spouse or civil union partner; or

    (v) a party to a marriage or civil union that is now dissolved, or to a de facto relationship that is now ended

    Hello world!

    Like

  7. andrei's avatar andrei says:

    The legalism of the Western (Protestant) church on display.

    How you live is between you and God and not anybody else’s business.

    They are, as Ele said, living in sin but that is their issue for which they will be accountable for as we all, without exception, will be for our transgressions

    Like

  8. TraceyS's avatar TraceyS says:

    Mr E, the church doesn’t need to be “exempt” because the HRA only applies to some of it’s activities:

    “Discrimination by private bodies or individuals on any of the grounds in the Human Rights Act is illegal only if it occurs in one of the areas of life covered by the Act, such as employment, education, and access to goods and services.”

    http://www.lawaccess.govt.nz/Chapter/how-is-an-employee/57-Discrimination/3-When-Discrimination-is-Iegal

    So if she applies for a job which is not subject to an exemption, or if she wants to hire the publicly-available church hall, they can’t say no on the basis of her marital status. But they can deny her church membership on that basis because it’s not an “area of life” covered by the Act. Similarly, I could exclude a parent from my coffee group on the basis of gender, and while I may come in for criticism, it would not be illegal.

    Like

  9. Paranormal's avatar Paranormal says:

    The calvinists were the staunchest of the protestants in rejecting the frippery of the catholic church. Hard to condemn them for staying true to their ethos.

    Like

  10. Mr E's avatar Mr E says:

    Sounds correct Tracey. I was going to say “sounds right” but then thought better of it.

    Like

  11. TraceyS's avatar TraceyS says:

    Maybe, Mr E. Correct is not always right.

    But there has to a line drawn somewhere between institutions and private individuals and/or their organisations. Imagine if discrimination was illegal everywhere…

    Would I still be able to choose a female for my doctor? Reject a classroom choice for my kids if the teacher had conflicting religious beliefs, morals, or ethical standards?

    Could adults by right enrol in primary school? Children in University?

    And what would become of groups like Women’s Institutes? Special-character schools?

    Not attempting to make a case for discrimination, just recognising that it is there and we overlook it all the time. Healthy to question it though!

    Like

Leave a comment