14 comments

1. Dr. Clark,

   Thank you for considering my suggestion, I would find it very edifying and beneficial in thinking about Genesis 1 and 2 if you did a series and it would give me a helpful resource to share with people who often like I was, are hearing of this for the first time and don’t know where to start looking into it.

   God bless!

   • Jared,

     There are some articles on this topic on the HB:

     Aquinas On Creation Days

     E. J. Young On Creation Days And Solar Days

     Geerhardus Vos On The Creation Days

     Bavinck on the Creation Days

     URCNA Synod Escondido 2001 On Creation

     Hermeneutics And The Creation Wars

     There is a chapter in Recovering the Reformed Confession in which I address this question too.

   • Thank you for those resources. The chapter in “Recovering” was very helpful.

2. Interesting question about marriage in light of the current controversy about attending a trans wedding. Some are of the opinion that Christians should not attend unbelievers weddings either. I believe these are two separate issues.

   • JP,

     You’re right. There is a difference. Marriage is a creational institution (“it was not so in the beginning”), thus it is for believers and unbelievers. The Anabaptists, however, don’t have a category for nature/creation because grace (redemption) wipes it out. Thus, they (and those influenced by them, which includes most of the 60 million American evangelicals) don’t have a way to connect marriage to unbelievers.

     • Dr. Clark, I agree with you about the legitimacy of marriage between two unbelievers. But I’d be interested in knowing how you would respond to a discussion I witnessed at a URCNA classical examination of a candidate for ordination who was asked a related but not quite identical question.

       He was first asked the normal questions we would expect on how he would prepare covenant sons and daughters of the church for marriage, and then some questions on how he would deal with church members becoming romantically interested in people who are members of other denominations that were officially Reformed but problematic (the implication was members of the local CRC but that wasn’t stated), and then questions on members of his church becoming romantically interested in non-Reformed evangelicals. His answers were pretty much what would be expected. He stated that he wouldn’t conduct a marriage of a church member to an unbeliever or a broad evangelical unless the unbeliever showed clear evidence of conversion, or the broad evangelical had come to Reformed convictions, and in either case, proved that by joining a confessionally Reformed church, making profession of faith following the in-depth and detailed personal examination into doctrine and life that should be done by a consistory when receiving someone from outside confessionally Reformed circles into church membership.

       But he then made what might be considered an “unforced error” by saying that in some sense, unbelievers belong together, and he wasn’t sure he would have a problem with a marriage of two unbelievers.

       I don’t remember all the comments made at classis but they were not favorable. His comments didn’t derail his ordination (he was, after all, well-known to the local pastors) but he received a very strong admonition that if he started marrying unbelievers, he would get a reputation in town for being “Marryin’ Sam.” (Younger people may not recognize the Li’l Abner reference to a travelling hillbilly preacher who will marry anyone who pays him money for the wedding.)

       I live in the Ozarks and I am very much aware that “Marryin’ Sam” was not an invention of the comic strip. They’re real, and they’re a real problem.

       My personal opinion, having seen the damage done by real-life “Marryin’ Sams,” is to say that unbelievers need to go get married in the county courthouse or some other secular venue, not in a church ceremony, and the officiant should be a justice of the peace or comparable official authorized by the applicable state laws to conduct marriages, not by an ordained minister.

       In other words, there is a very real difference between the validation that the church gives to a marriage after what should be an extensive counseling process, and what the secular authorities do, who require nothing from the two parties to the marriage beyond being of legal age to obtain a marriage license.

       Yes, marriage is a creation ordinance. No, we’re not Roman Catholics and we don’t believe marriage is a sacrament. But Reformed ministers should refuse to conduct some types of marriages, while recognizing that if the couple reject his warnings and go get married anyway by secular authorities, they are validly married in the eyes of both the civil law and the church.

       Obviously gay marriage is a different issue. A marriage between two men or two women is not a marriage that should be recognized by the church. I’d argue the same for a second marriage of a man and woman following an unbiblical divorce, but I recognize the issue there is messier, and not at the same level as two men or two women.

       • Hi Darrell,

         I know you addressed Dr. Clark, but I just wanted to chime in and say that in my former days as a Baptist, I had a pastor who had no problem at all marrying two unbelievers (and did so from time to time to the confusion of some congregants); his rationale was that he was authorized by the state to marry, so I think he might’ve been suggesting that he wasn’t marrying them with his pastor hat on but as a citizen of the state, authorized by the state to officiate weddings and he was doing so in that capacity—not as a minister of the gospel.

         In the end, I agree with you: let the state take care of the weddings of unbelievers so as not to blur lines and cause unnecessary confusion.

         Nevertheless, I thought the example of my former pastor is interesting because many evangelical Baptists have an insufficient understanding of nature/common/secular (only of grace and special revelation, as Dr. Clark already alluded above), so he was trying to uphold those distinctions at least but perhaps not in the wisest of ways (something tells me his rationale wouldn’t have flown in the URC classis you were at, 🙂).

         Blessings in Christ,

         • Hi Brandon,

           Interesting.

           Our church order does not permit me to conduct a wedding between two unbelievers or between a believer and an unbeliever but civil weddings are legitimate weddings and that is what I would encourage those such circumstances to pursue. I’m not sure why, as matter of logic, unbelievers want clergy to conduct their wedding.

           • Thank you to Dr. Clark and Brandon. Somehow I missed the replies of both of you to my post.

             Dr. Clark, I’ve done a quick search on the term “marriage” of the online URC church order to which you link, which may have been amended since that classical examination back in the 1990s I mentioned. I’m not sure.

             The only relevant articles mentioning marriage appear to be these. I don’t see that any of them specifically forbid a URC minister from marrying two unbelievers. Realistically, the only case I can see where that might come up in the URC would be two baptized members of a URC congregation who had not made profession of faith, were clearly not converted, and got involved in immorality and the URC boyfriend got his URC girlfriend pregnant.

             Is there a synodical decision interpreting these URC church order articles that I don’t know about?

             To be clear, I’m not defending ministers marrying two unbelievers. I think it’s a bad idea because of the “Marryin’ Sam” problem. But I don’t see the URC church order specifically addressing that.

             ________

             Article 48 – Marriage
             Scripture teaches that marriage is designed to be a lifelong, monogamous covenantal union between one man and one woman. Consistories shall instruct and admonish those under their spiritual care who are considering marriage to marry in the Lord. Christian marriages shall be solemnized with appropriate admonitions, promises, and prayers, under the regulation of the Consistory, with the use of the appropriate liturgical form. Ministers shall not solemnize marriages that conflict with the Word of God.

             Article 50 – The Church Records
             The Consistory shall maintain accurate membership records which include names and dates of baptisms, professions of faith, marriages and deaths of members of the congregation.

             Appendix 8
             Pastoral Advice Regarding Membership Departures
             1. Membership Transfer
             A consistory may transfer a person’s membership only to churches with whom the URCNA has established Ecclesiastical Fellowship1 or with whom we share membership in NAPARC.2 Therefore, when a member asks the consistory for transfer to such a church, he or she should clearly identify the receiving church (see URCNA Church Order Article 64). When the consistory accedes to the member’s request, it should send appropriate membership information (i.e. the dates for birth, baptism, profession of faith, and/or marriage, as applicable) directly to the elders of the receiving church, including an attestation to the member’s good standing or disciplinary status. Attestations should be written to orient the receiving elders to the member we are asking them to receive and oversee.3

3. Hello Dr. Clark,

   In light of your comments about mental images of Christ, I wonder what you would make of the following comment by Turretin:

   “From a mental image to a sculptured or painted image, the consequence does not hold good. The former is of necessity, since I cannot perceive anything without some species or idea of it formed in the mind. Now this image is always conjoined with the spirit of discernment by which we so separate the true from the false, that there is no danger of idolatry. But the latter is a work of mere judgment and will, expressly prohibited by God and always attended with great danger of idolatry.” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 11th Topic, Question 10.11, pg. 65 of Vol. 2 of Dennison’s Edition)

   It seems to me that Turretin presents mental images of God as not inherently sinful, but as an unavoidable by-product of our human psychology. He may be thinking of Aristotle’s idea that it is impossible for the intellect to consider anything without the use of mental phantasms/imaginations. However, he appears to see this as being innocuous because one recognizes that the image one inevitably forms to think about God or Christ is not in fact derived from one’s having seen God or Christ. I think he would say then that it is impossible to think “that Christ went to the cross” and have any meaningful cognitive content about it without having some image of what a cross is or what Christ was. If I evacuate my thoughts of any sense images (not just visual, but audible, tactile etc.) of Christ then it seems that I will not be thinking of Christ at all. What do you think of Turretin’s comments above? Have I missed something?

   • Hi Cole,

     If I understand him correctly, I think I disagree with Turretin here. I deny that mental images are unavoidable.

     Here’s my argument.

     As a matter of principle, when the churches have confessed something, if we must choose between the personal opinion of even a respected theologian and the confession of the church, we should side with the church.

     • Thank you for your reply Dr. Clark!

       I did read the article, but I don’t know that I saw a response to the idea Turretin cites that we cannot perceive anything except by means of a species or image formed in the mind. As I’ve dug into Scholasticism and Reformed Orthodoxy, it seems to me that Aquinas’ epistemology is at the back of this, since he denies that we can think of anything without turning to sense images (ST I.84.7), and he further denies that we can have more than an imperfect knowledge of immaterial substances in this life, including God, and that the knowledge we have must also be mediated through created things (ST I.88.2-3). Would the Reformed have accepted that premise from Thomistic-Aristotelian thinking?

       Would you know of any resources about how the Reformed Divines would recommend that we meditate on God without using our imagination? I would like to get this right, but if it is sinful to have any kind of image of a man in our minds when thinking of Christ, I wonder how we can even think about Christ at all. Wilhelmus A Brackel seemed to indicate in the article above that one is prevented from thinking spiritual thoughts of God when other people talk about Him (I’m not sure if he is meaning all kinds of talking about God).

       I’d be interested to know if anyone else held Turretin’s view, since you claimed in the article, “I doubt that there exists in the classical period a Reformed theologian or church that approved on interior images of God any more than they approved of exterior images.” It seems like Turretin is at least one exception, and I wonder if the confession/catechism he adhered to explicitly proscribed mental images.

       • If you’re correct. Turretin is wrong.

         God isn’t a thing to be perceived. He’s not a creature.

         We perceive the effects of his operations in the world. We hear God’s Word, we see the sacraments.

         I might be wrong about Turretin. I’m not sure yet. I need to consider this case more closely.

         I suspect that there’s something not quite right about your explanation of Turretin, something I don’t see yet.

         • Okay, thank you! I’d be glad to see a future post on Turretin 🙂

Comments are closed.