Editor’s note: The Presbyterian Lay Committee (PLC), the publisher of The Layman and The Layman Online, does not support same-sex marriage. Instead, the PLC “believes with Scripture that God ordained the lifelong marriage of a man and a woman in the very order of creation and that Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church, blessed and sanctified this relationship.”
In its efforts to have same-sex marriage permitted in the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Covenant Network has announced that it will support Overture 21 – which completely re-writes the definition of marriage found in the denomination’s constitution – at this summer’s General Assembly.
The Covenant Network also plans to support efforts to have the 2014 assembly approve an Authoritative Interpretation (AI) of the definition of marriage in the Book of Order to “clarify that officiating at a marriage of two women or two men is a legitimate exercise of pastoral discretion, addressing the immediate crisis that ministers risk ecclesiastical discipline for following their conscience in serving the people,” according to the organization’s web site.
Presbyterian Lay Committee President Carmen Fowler Laberge responded to that by saying, “I see the immediate crisis as having nothing to do with the risk of ecclesiastical discipline or conforming to the desires of particular people. I see the immediate crisis as much greater – with the risk of divine judgment for the failure to conform to God’s holy will.”
Covenant Network’s goal at the 221st General Assembly is to emphasize “the imperative of opening the PCUSA to the ministry of marriage for all,” and to do so, it “is supporting both an AI and the amendment in Overture 21,” read an update sent out by Tricia Dykers Koenig, the Covenant Network’s national organizer.
The PCUSA’s General Assembly will be held June 14-21 in Detroit, Mich.
Overture 21
Overture 21, from the Presbytery of the Cascades, states that the presbytery, “stands with those in the PCUSA who believe that the teachings of Jesus call for radical inclusion of all people and that the actions of Jesus, passed down in Scripture, showed unconditional love and equality for all people. We believe that God created each of us with many differences, including sexual preferences, and that those differences are to be celebrated as part of the creative plan of God. Support of marriage equality is consistent with our faith tradition. The covenant of marriage requires love and commitment; qualities that are in no way gender specific.”
Fowler Laberge rejects that argument, saying, “The very nature of God’s created order is complementary. To suggest otherwise is to reject the God-declared goodness of things before the Fall. You not only have to re-write Genesis 1 and 2, you have to thoroughly ignore Genesis chapter 3 to arrive at the place where an affirmation of same-sex relations is possible. They may ‘believe’ that God created sexual preferences, but there is no Biblical evidence to support that claim. In fact, the entire testimony of the Scriptures in both the Old and New Testaments bear witness to the contrary.”
The overture would delete the current wording of W-4.900 (where the definition of marriage can be found in the constitution) and replace it with:
Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the well-being of the entire human family. Marriage involves a unique commitment between two people to love and support each other for the rest of their lives. The sacrificial love that unites the couple sustains them as faithful and responsible members of the church and the wider community.
“In civil law, marriage is a contract that recognizes the rights and obligations of the married couple in society. In the Reformed tradition, marriage is also a covenant in which God has an active part, and which the community of faith publicly witnesses and acknowledges.
“If they meet the requirements of the civil jurisdiction in which they intend to marry, a couple may request that a service of Christian marriage be conducted by a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA), who is authorized, though not required, to act as an agent of the civil jurisdiction in recording the marriage contract. A couple requesting a service of Christian marriage shall receive instruction from the teaching elder, who shall agree to the couple’s request only if, in the judgment of the teaching elder, the couple demonstrate sufficient understanding of the nature of the marriage covenant and commitment to living their lives together according to its values. In making this decision, the teaching elder may seek the counsel of the session, which has authority to permit or deny the use of church property for a marriage service.
“The marriage service shall be conducted in a manner appropriate to this covenant and to the forms of Reformed worship, under the direction of the teaching elder and the supervision of the session (W-1.4004–.4006). In a service of marriage, the couple marry each other by exchanging mutual promises. The teaching elder witnesses the couple’s promises and pronounces God’s blessing upon their union. The community of faith pledges to support the couple in upholding their promises; prayers may be offered for the couple, for the communities that support them, and for all who seek to live in faithfulness.
“A service of worship recognizing a civil marriage and confirming it in the community of faith may be appropriate when requested by the couple. The service will be similar to the marriage service except that the statements made shall reflect the fact that the couple is already married to one another according to the laws of the civil jurisdiction.”
(A side-by-side comparison of the text of both the current wording and Overture 21 can be found by clicking here.)
Sixteen other PCUSA presbyteries have concurred – or agreed – with Overture 21, including Albany, Baltimore, Boston, Cayuga-Syracuse, Chicago, East Iowa, Genessee Valley, Heartland, Hudson River, National Capital, New York City, San Francisco, Southern New England, Redwoods, Twin Cities and Transylvania.
Most of the presbyteries listed wrote additional rationales voicing their support of the overture, and many of those note that the proposed change to the definition of marriage will not obligate any teaching elder to perform a same-sex marriage.
The rationale from Hudson River Presbytery clearly states that “It is now time to allow, not force, but allow, our clergy and churches to perform weddings in jurisdictions where it is legal for same-gender couples as a sign of our pastoral care.” (emphasis added)
Speaking to that same issue in his article “Why an Authoritative Interpretation matters,” Brian Ellison, Covenant Network’s executive director, discussed a “disheartening conversation” he had with a Presbyterian friend who hoped the General Assembly would not approve the AI because she feared that, in time, all churches and ministers would be forced to permit and conduct same-sex weddings.
“That is not the goal,” wrote Ellison. “… the proposed AIs explicitly preserve conscience for those who do not approve of same-sex marriage. What we stand for is pastoral discretion and freedom – the ability of ministers to do what they always do with marriages, discerning the appropriateness of a marriage, offering counseling and prayer, and officiating at those weddings they feel are God-honoring and wise. No church would ever be required to host any wedding. No minister would be forced to perform one. On the contrary, this authoritative interpretation would best preserve our traditional affirmation that “God alone is Lord of the conscience,” trusting the Spirit to lead our ministers and councils, on a case-by-case basis, to know what is best.”
However, the rationale from San Francisco Presbytery, while not calling for ministers to perform same-sex marriage, does indicate that it hopes all ministers will have to help facilitate them. “It should be hoped that those pastors who cannot perform such ceremonies for those who request them would find other teaching elders nearby or in their presbytery who may be willing to do so to preserve the pastoral connections of the couple within the church,” stated the rationale.
Fowler Laberge responded to that rationale by saying, “What is proposed here is that pastors whose conscience proscribes blessing what the Bible calls ‘sin’ would be compelled by their denomination to functionally facilitate the blessing through reference to someone who would perform the wedding. That is not a protection of conscience. That is coercive compulsion.”
And, Presbyterian blogger Viola Larson discussed another danger to evangelical/conservative pastors who refuse to perform same-sex marriages if the AI is approved by the GA.
“If a baker, or a photographer, or a florist who does not want to participate in a same gender wedding can be fined, forced out of their business, even jailed, what will happen to a pastor, who is a member of a denomination which allows same gender marriage, when someone files a discrimination suit against her? She will not be able to state that her denomination does not allow same gender weddings,” Larson wrote in her blog. “Ellison cannot guarantee and he stands, with his promises, on a very flimsy foundation. If the AI passes, the crisis, the true crisis, will surely tear the PCUSA apart in so many ways.”
The Authoritative Interpretation
In his article, Ellison wrote that “This summer, we at the Covenant Network are encouraging the 221st General Assembly to make decisions that will deepen and enhance the church’s understanding of marriage – clarifying that its blessings are available to all people, including couples of the same gender. One way we hope the assembly does this is through an authoritative interpretation – a binding ruling by the church’s highest council about what the constitution does and doesn’t say.”
The Covenant Network’s update listed three overtures that seek an AI of the constitution regarding marriage. They are:
- Overture 24 from Heartland Presbytery with 19 concurrences from other presbyteries.
- Overture 27 from East Iowa Presbytery with three concurrences.
- Overture 36 from New Castle Presbytery with one concurrence
“Upon approval by the GA, an AI goes into effect immediately; thus it is the most efficient means of protecting pastors who are exercising their discretion according to their conscience,” Dykers Koenig wrote in the update.
Fowler Laberge points out that “the issuance of an AI by the assembly would redefine marriage while by-passing the process of formally amending the denomination’s constitution. To be honest, this is the reality in which we already live. PCUSA pastors are performing gay weddings with impunity. And we have PCUSA ministers who are in same-sex marriages. The Board of Pensions offers full benefits to same-sex partners of plan members. PCUSA seminaries provide housing for partnered gay students. The sad truth is that for all practical purposes, the PCUSA already affirms same-sex practice – the issuance of an AI to expressly allow for all that would reflect the theology already in practice.”
The AI recommended in Overture 24, which has the most support from the denomination’s presbyteries, reads:
“Worship is a central element of the pastoral care of the people of God (W-6.3001, W-6.3010) in which a teaching elder’s discernment of the leading of the Holy Spirit is indispensable. The necessity of ensuring the exercise of freedom of conscience in the interpretation of Scripture (G-2.0105) in the planning and leadership of worship has deep roots in our Reformed tradition and theology. Because a service of marriage is one form of such worship, when a couple requests the involvement of the church in solemnizing their marriage as permitted by the laws of the place where the couple seek to be married, teaching elders* have the pastoral responsibility to assess the capabilities, intentions, and readiness of the couple to be married (W-4.9002), and the freedom of conscience in the interpretation of Scripture (G-2.0105) to participate in any such marriage they believe the Holy Spirit calls them to perform. Exercising such discretion and freedom of conscience under the prayerful guidance of Scripture, teaching elders may conduct a marriage service for any such couple in the place where the community gathers for worship, if approved by the session; or in such other place as may be suitable for a service of Christian worship. In no case shall any teaching elder’s conscience be bound to conduct any marriage service for any couple except by his or her understanding of the Word, and the leading of the Holy Spirit. The authoritative interpretation of this section by the 203rd General Assembly (1991) (Minutes, 1991, Part I, p. 395, paragraphs 21.124–128), and the subsequent authoritative interpretations of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission relying upon it, are withdrawn and replaced with this authoritative interpretation.”
In its rationale, Heartland Presbytery wrote, “The civil legal framework of marriage has changed since the constitutional provisions and other rulings that govern marriage in the PCUSA were put into place. The constitution protects a minister’s obligation and right to exercise pastoral discretion in matters such as whether or not to officiate at the marriage service of any particular couple. Clarifying the constitution in this way will contribute to the peace and unity of the church.”
To that statement, Fowler Laberge points out the obvious: “It will notably not contribute to the purity of the church.”
Ellison wrote, “The reality is that the situation before the church with same-sex marriage is exactly the kind of situation an AI is designed to address. It is a situation that the Book of Order didn’t anticipate, but where its guidance can still be applied, with some interpretation. The Directory for Worship as currently crafted reflects a reality much different from our current context. We as a church can address our practice of marriage without changing our fundamental understanding of it, and an AI allows us to move forward in a faithful way.”
He continued that by passing the AI, the General Assembly would resolve the crisis faced by pastors when same-sex couples ask to be married by them in the church. The AI “would allow for weddings in states where same-sex marriage is legal; it would also ground that act in the same deep foundation set forth in the Book of Order that is offered for all other marriages: ‘a gift God has given to all humankind for the well-being of the entire human family… a covenant… a lifelong commitment… publicly witnessed and acknowledged by the community of faith’ (W-4.9001).”
Larson took exception to Ellison’s comments, writing “What he is actually saying is that as the law changes, so must the denomination. And he is basing that on what can only be seen as unBiblical views of love, and unBiblical sexual acts. A church so involved with the world is truly a lost church, an empty shell that may be called a denomination, but not the Church. Furthermore, a denomination which embraces the dictates of civil government when those dictates collide with Biblical teaching is preparing to stand against some of it on members who still hold to the authority of Scripture.”
Fowler Laberge commented that “what’s at stake in the cultural debate, reflected here in the debate within the PCUSA, is nothing less than holiness, righteousness, the purity of the Bride of Christ and the very real question of whether or not we receive the Word of God for what it really is. These are not new questions – but the question remains whether or not the PCUSA will faithfully answer by affirming God’s revealed ordering for marriage which has been male/female since Creation.”
16 Comments. Leave new
They say “We believe that God created each of us with many differences, including sexual preferences, and that those differences are to be celebrated as part of the creative plan of God.” Following that logic would then mean ALL sexual acts are OK. Therefore, who could argue against rape, bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, incest etc.?
Mr. Ryan, your logic has a flaw. Sexual orientation (a better term than “preference”) is not the same as a sexual act, and is not defined by a sexual act. Even celibate persons have a sexual orientation. To Rape, bestiality and pedophilia are not manifestations of sexual orientation. One could easily and successfully argue against these types of sexual acts on grounds that have nothing to do with sexual orientation. No one is calling them “OK” because they are not on a par with sexual intercourse between married adults, whether those adults are same-sex or opposite-sex couples.
I have resigned from the PC(USA) due to the current trend that this denomination must not believe what the Bible has said. God called homosexuality an abomination. End of story!
I’m torn, Paula.
1 Samuel 20:41-42: “41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded. 42 And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.”
supports W-4.9000:
If the Marriage Is Unwise
b. If the teaching elder is convinced after discussion with the couple that commitment, responsibility, maturity, or Christian understanding are so lacking that the marriage is unwise, the teaching elder shall assure the couple of the church’s continuing concern for them and not conduct the ceremony. In making this decision the teaching elder may seek the counsel of the session.
EITHER: The advice David received in Nob after leaving Jonathan (1 Sam. 21:1-5, Mark 2:25-26) convinced him NOT to marry his beloved friend. OR: More likely is that David himself – in the role of the teaching elder – broke off the relationship when he perceived that Jonathan was misunderstanding his (David’s) gestures of affection. Thus verse 41: “until David exceeded” means until David exceeded (Jonathan in wisdom), broke off the physical side of the relationship and convinced his partner that a divine barrier is “between my seed and thy seed.” David then went off to Nob to “seek the counsel of the session.” (Nob was the city of priests that Saul later destroyed – 1 Sam. 22.)
On the other hand, Overture 021:
A couple requesting a service of Christian marriage shall receive instruction from the teaching elder, who shall agree to the couple’s request only if, in the judgment of the teaching elder, the couple demonstrate sufficient understanding of the nature of the marriage covenant and commitment to living their lives together according to its values
is supported by 1 Samuel 17:20-28, which has Saul, “the teaching elder,” extending to David a course of instruction – including the examination of 200 human foreskins – in anticipation of his marriage to Michal. Carmen could argue that all this sex-education profited little, since David abandoned his bride on the wedding night (1 Sam. 19:11-12) and left her barren “unto the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23).
Thus – so the argument – Overture 021 bears within it the threat of losing Davidic offspring scil. the Messiah.
The so-called “gays” will not stop until they totally emasculate the Presbyterian Church. Small wonder
that thousands are steering away from PCUSA!
As 2 Timothy 4:3-4 says – and has been fulfilled in our presence – “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” (NIV -1984)
Leaders – on various levels – within the PCUSA have chosen to blatantly corrupt the teaching of Scripture, blatantly ordain those choosing lifestyles against the teachings of Scripture, and blatantly betraying the Reformed Faith.
The PCUSA had one and only one mission: to be faithful to the Word of God, Jesus Christ, his church and the Reformed Faith. May those apostate individuals – those ‘blind guides’ – humble themselves before God does!
The issue is not “sexual orientation”, it is “power and dominance”. Just as male animals will “hump” one another to express dominance, and identify submissive males; so both genders of our species perform (in supposedly more seemly and sophisticated manners) to command dominance over the P.C.U.S.A.. and other institutions, Christian and otherwise. The once great denomination, powerhouse of Reformation Christianity, has now slumped to be humped into submission to gross apostasy and degradation. It’s only superficially about “sexual” preference. It is a profound, profane rebellion against God. Only the return of Christ will end this madness. God is God, despite what reimagining fools and tools of satan think.
The KIng James is closer to the Greek:
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
“To say what their itching ears want to hear” is wrong, as is “gather around them a great number of teachers to say.” Note the comma in the King James! It’s the anonymous “they” that have the “itching ears (lit. report, or sense of hearing)” not the teachers. Verse 2 says, “Preach … with all … doctrine.” And that’s what the PCUSA is doing: making sure it touches all the bases when rounding the infield called “doctrine.”
It is physically impossible for two people of the same sex to be married. The covenant of marriage is completed with the “one flesh” union, which cannot happen with people of the same sex.
2 Tmothy 4:3-4:
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
“Having itching ears” poorly paraphrases the Greek. Better is “itching for a report.” The Greek ἀκοή doesn’t mean physical ear, which is ὠτίον, but rather what goes in the ear – usually a rumor – and the process of taking that in. See 2 Samuel 22:45: “Strangers shall submit themselves unto me: as soon as they hear, they shall be obedient unto me.” “As soon as they hear” is literally “as soon as the report (rumor) reaches their ears.” The Hebrew word for “rumor” is שֽׁמוּעָה shemu‘a, which consists of שֵׁם shem “name” and ועה u‘a, which is close enough to יהוה yehua, the divine name, to cause a problem for pharisaical Jews obsessed with sanctifying God’s name. See Lev. 24:11: “And the Israelitish woman’s son blasphemed the name, and cursed,” where the crime is literally: “woman’s son specified the name” – for which he incurred the death penalty (verses 14 and 16). To avoid saying “the Lord”, Jews of that time would say “the name” when addressing or talking about the Lord (ya, yehua).
The sanctification of the holy name met a challenge with the inception of Christianity, focusing on a leader fondly addressed “Jesus.” Timothy laments in verses 3 and 4 the propensity of the Pharisees to lurk on street corners, “itching” to hear the Lord’s name being specified/blasphemed in order to bring the offender(s) to trial. “And they shall turn away their ears from the truth” implies that the Pharisees became so carried away with their hunt for sinners that they slurred the divine yeshua “Jesus” (truth) into the unpronouncable yehua and then “destroyed (Christians) which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that (they) might bring them bound unto the chief priests” (Acts 9:21). “They heap to themselves teachers” comes from the fact that the head of the witchhunt, Paul, was “brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers” (Acts. 22:3). The name of the teacher that incited Paul against the Christians – “Gamaliel” – means “Camel God” or “Camel is like God.” Proceeding from the camel’s distinguishing hump, Saul “piled up teachers” in the sense that he rode the humps of Gamaliel and his colleagues in stoking the fire against the Christians. That is not to say he indulged with Gamaliel in “humping,” a deviant sexual act that Jim attributes to the commissioners of General Assembly.
I believe that satan is in this world and we are seeing the fruits of his labors as he exploits those who are turning from Christ to destroy the reformed churches.
Satan has been ‘in this world’ and will continue for a finite time. Satan has desired to ‘sift us’ and has found refuge in the hearts and minds of a small portion of the PCUSA who are flaunting their orientation and offices of leadership to destroy – from within the household of God – what has been taking place within the world.
As in the political realm, when the majority abnegates its rights, there are those who are ready to lead us to destruction. The PCUSA has a small but vociferous minority that is wearing down the resistance of the majority at its national and local level. All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for the good folks to stay home and be silent. In that light, another explanation for the state of the PCUSA is: the good people got tired of doing good before the ‘bad people’ got tired of being bad.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables
The reason Paul/Saul’s ears itched was this: His teacher introduced himself on the first day of school with: “Hi, I’m Gamaliel!” Saul’s hearing being no better than his eyesight, he heard the name as “Gamaleli,” which means “pay back Eli” in Hebrew. In accordance with 1 Sam. 3:12-14:
11 And the LORD said to Samuel, Behold, I will do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears of every one that heareth it shall tingle.
12 In that day I will perform against Eli all things which I have spoken concerning his house: when I begin, I will also make an end.
13 For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not.
14 And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever.
about the Lord’s plan of retribution for the sin of embezzlement of the offerings (1 Sam. 2:12-17), Saul’s ears began to tingle. Not wanting to miss any of the lecture, he began to scratch them, provoking catcalls of “Look Saul has itchy ears!” Verse 3: “shall they heap to themselves teachers” doesn’t necessarily mean that the students celebrated the year-end by slaughtering their Jewish mentors and piling up the carcasses. More likely, Acts 8:3: “As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling (sic!) men and women committed them to prison” implies a hunger for the gospel so strong as to make Saul invade houses and amass a faculty of Christian instructors. Verse 4: “and shall be turned unto fables” is misleading. The Greek for fables – μύθους – (ESV: “myths”) implies that the students got so fed up with Gamaliel’s lecturing that they turned to their “math” homework for amusement. Mathematics was for the ancient Church, steeped in the Bible, the same as “myth.”
Yes, camels have humps. That is within conceptual range if you want to follow a “rabbit trail”. But, I was not referring to camels, or rabbits, or any other species that engage in the common animal practice of male humping male to express dominance over submission. I was instead analogizing to illustrate the political behavior practiced by male, and female, advocates of homosexual preference and special privileges for that aberrancy (a.k.a. sin).
Not all insight can be summarized by a few direct Bible quotations. The Word of God can be read through a microscope. One can also simply stare at the closed book. Most of us open the pages and read them to see small and large and every scale between.
Please, pardon my use of a common animal behavior to illustrate current politics in the P.C.U.S.A. Even apostasy can be morbidly entertaining with outrageous images added.
The problem with the David-Michal marriage, Carmen, was that it wasn’t going anywhere. David’s job was to become king, and the Clinton precedent, where the top post passes between marriage partners, was a long way off. Besides, Jonathan and David were already conjugally linked; or had, at least, exchanged vows. See 1 Sam 18:3: “Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.” The covenant – along the lines of “To death us do part” – is at 1 Sam 20:14-17, whose difficult Hebrew text ends with:
“16 So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, Let the LORD even require it at the hand of David’s enemies. 17 And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul.”
A third covenanting of the couple is at 1 Sam 23:18.
So Overture 21 has a measure of truth. David needed Jonathan as partner to validate his (David’s) claim to the throne by reason of widow’s inheritance. (Jonathan died in the Battle of Gilboa – 1 Sam. 31:2). The overture:
The marriage service shall be conducted in a manner appropriate to this covenant and to the forms of Reformed worship, under the direction of the teaching elder and the supervision of the session (W-1.4004–.4006). In a service of marriage, the couple marry each other by exchanging mutual promises. The teaching elder witnesses the couple’s promises and pronounces God’s blessing upon their union. The community of faith pledges to support the couple in upholding their promises; prayers may be offered for the couple, for the communities that support them, and for all who seek to live in faithfulness
follows 1 Sam 18:3-6:
2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father’s house.
3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
5 And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely: and Saul set him over the men of war, and he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul’s servants.
6 And it came to pass as they came, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the women came out of all cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet king Saul, with tabrets, with joy, and with instruments of musick.
Jonathan and David exchanged vows (verse 3) and rings (verse 4) under the watchful eye of the teaching elder, Saul (verse 2). Rejecting Jonathan’s sexual advances, David left the royal house to get the support of “the community of faith” (verse 5). Finally, the women of the state assembled and affixed their musical stamp of approval to the union (verse 6).
David mourned Jonathan with the words: “Thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women” (2 Sam. 1:26). Michal, on the other hand, “despised him in her heart” (2 Sam. 6:16).
Those supporters of same-sex marriage are fools and their actions may destroy the church. They will reap what they sow and by then I may have joined another denomination. It’s nauseating.