SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

‘Same sex Marriage bill’ – now law: what it means for churches – Craig Vernall

by 1 Comment

Senior Pastor, Craig Vernall, National Leader of the NZ Baptist Union, has notified all Baptist pastors registered as marriage celebrants (on the Baptist List) with the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages, that they are expressly forbidden to perform civil unions and same sex marriages under Baptist Administration Manual policy (put in place by the Baptist Assembly Council). Nor can they or any other Baptist celebrant perform such ceremonies in a private capacity, because they are only authorised to their (statutory function) role as marriage celebrants, based on the Call they have to the local Baptist congregation, and having accepted that Call, they are duty-bound to uphold the policies etc. of the NZ Baptist Union (of NZ churches). Vernall has written (NZ Baptist magazine. May 2013, p. 20):

With the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill passing into law in August this year it’s time for us to consider how our churches should respond to this new legislation.

During the months leading up to the Definition of Marriage Bill being passed, there have been a variety of opinions from both sides of the debate. A very small number of Baptist pastors have indicated to me that they would consider marrying a same sex couple, but admitted this didn’t necessarily reflect the opinions of their congregations.

I mention this because Baptist churches maintain a unique relationship with their pastors when it comes to the pastor’s right to conduct weddings. Baptists are firstly a movement of local churches. When a Baptist church calls a pastor, that pastor then has the ability to become a Registered Baptist pastor. Being registered then qualifies the pastor to become a celebrant on the Baptist list which is held by the Government appointed Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

So the ability for a Baptist Pastor to perform a wedding is linked directly to the Call given to him or her by their local Baptist church. This means the authority to perform a wedding belongs to the church, not the pastor. The pastor fulfils this function as a ministry of the church, but not by their own authority.

In recognition of this, the Assembly Council has made adjustments to the policy schedule in the Baptist Administration Manual because we believe this reflects the will of our Baptist churches and the Bible.

The Baptist Administration Manual includes policy covering Marriage and Civil Unions. This is found within ‘The Local Church” Appendix 2-M “Policy on Marriage and Civil Unions.”

This policy precludes Baptist pastors from conducting civil unions or the use of Baptist church buildings for such a ceremony. It was the Assembly Council’s decision, at their April 2013 meeting, to update this policy to include same sex marriage alongside civil unions as a ceremony we cannot condone. The Baptist Administration Manual will reflect this decision in due course.

A number of our pastors have asked questions about their protection under the law with respect to their wish not to perform same sex marriages. It is my understanding that church ministers are not legally required to perform a same sex marriage and that this decision will  be protected in law as the legislation is finalised in the coming months.

Neither will Baptist churches have to surrender their buildings for same sex ceremonies. Our buildings are operated under our own authority. If your church congregation is worried about this it would be advisable to adopt the Baptist Administration Manual policies on Marriage and Sexuality and Marriage and Civil Unions (“The Local Church”, Appendix 2M and Appendix 2F Addendum 2) into your church’s constitution. Contact the Baptist Resource Centre for more information.

It will take some time for the dust to settle on this new law. For most of us it will be church business as usual. I’m anticipating that the first point of conflict won’t be with the churches, but with the independent marriage celebrants or court employed marriage registrars who don’t want to perform a same sex marriage for conscience reasons. They are very vulnerable under the present law and will need our support if they wish to defend their personal convictions. The Resource Centre has already been approached by a couple of civil celebrants seeking to be placed on our Baptist celebrants’ list. Unfortunately we cannot do this because the list is specifically reserved for Registered or Accredited Baptist ministers.

A second area of continued debate was highlighted by Green MP Kevin Hague who was quoted in the NZ Herald as saying he, “has drafted a private members bill which would overhaul adoption laws and remove all restrictions to adoption by same sex couples.” (NZ Herald 20th April). The New Zealand public may have something to say about this as the change will deny the rights of a child, in law, to have both a mother and a father.

During the course of the debate, a number of our pastors made the suggestions that Baptists could simply opt out of the marriage celebrant system. That is, hand back our marriage celebrant’s licences to the state. This would leave the state to conduct the legal part of a marriage ceremony and the church would then conduct the wedding as a purely Christian covenant.

This is common practice throughout much of Europe and Central America. It provides a very attractive civil strategy for those of us who are deeply disappointed in our democracy. The Assembly Council discussed this option, but felt that by doing this we Baptists would simply remove ourselves from any future debate around the subject.

On ANZAC Day I joined thousands of other New Zealanders to commemorate and remember the price paid for our democratic freedoms. As I reflect upon what our democracy has given us over the past 150 years I would prefer to ask forgiveness from the men and women who laid down their lives for our democracy.

Is our society a better place since we passed laws such as lowering the drinking age to 18, legalised casinos, decriminalised prostitution and now allowed for same sex marriage? It’s difficult not to sound like some moralising old wowser, but when I saw the results of a text poll carried out by TV’s Campbell Live revealing that 78% of New Zealanders were against same sex marriage, I feel I’m not alone. I don’t think this latest change in the nature and status of marriage was God’s will for our country, and I’m quietly confident that many of those ANZACS who are fallen and now silent would agree with me.

Source

Marriage bill: what it means for churches

NZ Baptist Vol, 129 No.4. 1 May 2013, p. 20.

Craig Vernall is senior pastor at Bethlehem Baptist Church Bethlehem, Tauranga, New Zealand.

Note:

The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill has been widely referred to in the media as the ‘Same sex marriage bill’.

 

Maurice Williamson MP: ‘Gay Icon’ must answer to a Higher Being

by Leave a Comment

Dominion Post Letter to Editor (24 April) accompanied by colour photo of ‘Gay Icon’ Maurice Williamson delivering pro-same-sex marriage [Marriage Amendment bill] speech on 17 April 2013. In 2004, he voted against civil unions at the Third Reading of the Civil Union Act, along with John Key and 22 other Nation Party MPs.

maurice williamson

National Pakuranga MP Maurice Williamson’s marriage-amendment bill speech would have been half funny were it not for the assumptions he made as facts. He promised that the Sun would rise tomorrow, we’d not suffer skin diseases or plagues of toads, and that the world would carry on. His knowledge of physics assures us eternal punishment will last 2.1 seconds. His major error is to ignore that he’s answerable to a higher authority. It’s an error shared by the bill’s supporters, including some churches and their leaders. Though he and this Government might act as if they govern the universe, the Bible is clear that they will be called to account for their lives. Pussyfooting around, with platitudes about loving relationships and Jesus’ acceptance of everyone, ignores that, faced with an adulterous woman, he said, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more” – the later instruction being the condition placed on the forgiveness. The Church must be aware that after 30 years of “normalising ” homosexuality, the future demand will be to marry same-sex people in church because it would be “discriminatory” not to do so. What then, sheep?

Peter Bradley, Aotea.

24 April 2013. The Dominion Post. P. A10.

NZ resident couples overwhelmingly prefer marriage to civil union

by Leave a Comment

There were 20,900 marriages in New Zealand last year, compared to 338 civil unions.

According to Statistics New Zealand, 273 Kiwi couples legalised their relationship in a civil union, of which 73 per cent [199] were same-sex. A further 65 civil unions were registeted to overseas residents.

The 199 same-sex civil unions entered into by Kiwi couples resident in New Zealand in 2010 constitutes 0.9% of the total unions (marriages + civil unions) entered into by NZ resident Kiwi couples in 2010.

Since the Civil Union Act came into force six years ago, and taking account of the growth in New Zealand population each year, the number of civil unions has progressively dropped each year from a high of 430 in 2006.

At the current rate of decline of civil unions entered into each year and the rate of dissolution of such relations, one wonders how long this ‘institution’ will go the way of the dinosaurs – a mysterious extinction that will catch us all by surprise.

Gay Community cannot redefine marriage – Dom Post – Opinion

by Leave a Comment

Marriage about purpose, not rights – Opinion – by Bob McCoskrie – national director of Family First NZ – a registered charity with the Charities Commission – writes:

DEBORAH RUSSELL, (“Marriage should be for all”, October 21, Dominion Post) says the state has no business in the marriage game, but then argues that the state should redefine marriage to allow same-sex marriage.

Marriages are a matter of significant public concern, as the record of almost every culture shows.

If it weren’t for the fact that sexual intercourse between a man and a woman leads to children and brings with it a further obligation to care for tose children, the notion of marriage would probably never have existed.

Marriage encourages the raising of children by the mother and father who conceived them. Onn average, children raised by their biological parents who are married have the best outcomes in health, education and income, and by far the lowest involvement with the criminal justice system.

Russell then argues that denying same-sex marriage is “discriminatory” and “reinforces the power of traditional churches by endorcing their morality”.

Firstly, it is true that marriage by definition is discriminatory. A homosexual cannot now legally marry. But neither can a wholelot of other people. A five-year-old boy cannot marry. Three people cannot get married to each other. A married man can’t marry another person. A child cannot marry her pet goldfish. A football team cannot enact group marriage – the list is endless. It is disingenuous to complain to complain about rights being taken away, when they never existed in the first place. It is like trying to argue that Kiri te Kanawa is being discriminated against since she cannot play for the All Blacks, or Richie McCaw can’t play for the Silver Ferns.

Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/5849413/Gay-community-cannot-redefine-marriage

 

[Read more…]

Why saying ‘I do’ is good for families – Bob McCoskrie (Director – Family First NZ)

by Leave a Comment

[On 27 June the Dominion Post published the following article in defence of marriage and the family, by Bob McCoskrie, national director of the registered charity – Family First NZ]

On April 29, two billion people worldwide sat in front of their TV screens as they witnessed one of the most public weddings in history – the marriage of Prince William and Catherine Middleton.

No-one asked why they were getting married, why they didn’t get a civil union instead, or said that the ceremony was pointless and unnecessary. It was simply the dream that many aspire to.

Just 20,900 couples got married in New Zealand last year – an all-time low. This has led to claims that a wedding ring is unnecessary to legitimise parenthood and sexual activity. Put simply: some think marriage doesn’t matter. On that basis, civil unions matter even less – only 273 couples got one last year.

But do declining rates mean that it doesn’t matter? Should we be concerned that marriage rates are at an all-time low? Yes, we should. Marriage matters. The weakening of marriage is one of the most important social issues we are facing.

A 2006 British report said that the breakdown of the traditional married family was at the root of teenagers being involved in violent acts, taking more drugs, drinking more, and having sex at a younger age.

But the report didn’t come from a “Right-wing think-tank’ or lobby group with a “moralist agenda”. It was from Britain’s most prominent and influential Left-leaning policy group – the Institute for Public Policy Research. It contradicted years of ideology that family structure doesn’t matter.

Cohabitation statistics in the 21st century released this year by British social reform organisation the Jubilee Centre found that married couples with children are 10 times more likely to stay together than de facto couples – and marriages last an average of four years longer if partners haven’t lived together before getting married.

According to the study, in 1993 70 per cent of couples who had children after they got married remained married at their child’s 16th birthday – increasing to 75 per cent in 2006. Yet just 36 per cent of cohabiting parents were together for their child’s 16th birthday in 1992 – reducing to just 7 per cent in 2006. This indicates that marriage has become a more stable family background for raising children.

According to Why Marriage Matters – a report co-authored by 13 leading social- science scholars, including Professor William Galston, a domestic policy adviser to the Clinton administration – parental divorce or non-marriage appears to increase children’s risk of school failure, the risk of suicide, psychological distress and, most significantly, delinquent and criminal behaviour.

For full published article go to:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/5195687/Why-saying-I-do-is-good-for-our-families

OR

Family First NZ website: www.familyfirst.org.nz