Hello, welcome to Polity Matters. My name is Ben Ratliff, and I'm joined by my friend and yours, the Reverend Jared Nelson. Hello, sir. How are you? I'm doing great. How do you feel about the fact that as of today, when we're recording, we have now 75 overtures on this channel?

SPEAKER_00 0:20

25 away. I'm gonna fill in for Scott here to say, you know, just 25 more guys, and we can get to 100.

unknown 0:27

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 0:28

We're already in ridiculous uh territory. Might as well just add to it.

SPEAKER_01 0:31

Yeah, there's a point at which like it's impressive to have a lot, but we I think we've actually crossed the threshold where now it's just disappointing not to have a hundred, right? Like exactly. Yeah. Well, Scott is not with us today. He's doing the work of the church uh over in Atlanta somewhere, I think. Um at an airport hotel room or an airport conference room. I don't know. Where do they meet for these meetings? I don't know. Yeah, some sort of a conference room in Atlanta. Yeah, like a PF Chang's all day long, something like that. That'd be great. Yeah. Um well we are we're we're here doing the work. Uh Scott Scott sent us in his stead, and we are talking about uh the next chapter in the Book of Church Order, which is BCO 59. We are out of the full uh chapters that have constitutional authority in this section, but a little bit of this one has some constitutional authority. We're gonna talk about that when we get to it. Uh, Jared's gonna bring us up to speed because he was there when it happened. Uh in the room where it has Man, oh man. If only we could have gotten it live, but you know, Polity Matters was still just an apple and uh a sparkle in our eye back then. So um let's uh I want to start by asking a question generally. So the the chapter is titled The Solemnization of Marriage, um, which includes a word that's very difficult to say, and so you just have to say it quickly. But um we know that uh there was a chapter on marriage in the original Westminster directory for public worship, and so that probably explains why it's here. But there's there's a debate that would be had is is is a wedding a worship service or not? And I think that has I think that conversation has some bearing on the fact that this is present in our directory for worship. Uh one other thought would be just that um we're we're entering into a section that's not elements of worship, right? So far we've been dealing with elements of worship, but now we've got five chapters on marriage, visitation, burial, uh fasting and thanksgiving, Christian life in the home. Uh all of that is just me setting up for Jared to tell me why things are the way they are.

SPEAKER_00 2:32

Uh yeah, I think it's in Smith. Uh he says after section 58, chapter 58, these are things that are not necessarily corporate worship, but deal somehow with how the church functions. We don't um we may not see funeral as a formal called worship service that the entire church is invited to. And uh same with marriage. Uh, I think that's part of the qualification. Is the whole church invited to it? Um, that that would be a lot of cake, uh, I think for for a lot of uh couples to to dish out. Um can you serve the the supper there? Um that would be something that would you'd have to invite everybody to. So marriage, funerals, uh family worship. Hopefully, our our dads aren't serving um the Lord's Supper to their their kids on the couch. So um, but they do have to do with deal with uh worship elements or things like that. Uh I mean within a a wedding, you you might have a hymn that's sung. Uh you probably are gonna have some sort of a message that looks like a sermon. So um it's good for us to deal with this as pastors have to do marriages and and funerals. So that's my theory of why that's in there.

SPEAKER_01 3:36

That's good. I run into guys that talk, you know, that'll struggle with dealing with a marriage ceremony as a worship service or not. And they they like to lean well, you know, I've I've heard of guys talking about they they like to lean in the direction of it's a worship service, but but their primary reason for doing so is because it gives them a principle that they can work with to say no to things. You know, you you really I don't want Whitney Houston played in my sanctuary, and so we're gonna call it a worship service so that I can apply the regulative principle to it. Um I don't necessarily a hundred percent agree with that, because I think your point is good. A question you can ask is the is the supper something that would be appropriate, or is the baptism would that be appropriate in this context? That would be an a a fair question um to help evaluate if it's uh if it's a worship service or not. Um it doesn't mean it's a service the church can't call, right? Church can call Thanksgiving services, church can call you know prayer services, different types of things, and so it certainly falls into that category. Um But may or may not be a marriage, uh may or may not be a worship service. Uh anyway, age old debate. Listeners, tell us what you think.

SPEAKER_00 4:53

Yeah, I don't consider it a worship service mostly because if they ask me to serve the Lord's Supper there, I can say no.

SPEAKER_01 4:59

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 4:59

Yeah. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 5:02

Well, nevertheless, here it is. Um it's good that we have chapters on these things, and I suppose you could also ask where else would we stick these? And so this is a good place um just in the general life of the church um and and how we do some of these things. So we're gonna get into it unless uh unless you want to say anything else as a preface. That was my only sort of preface thing, was why is it here?

BCO 59-1

SPEAKER_01 5:27

All right. 591. Marriage is a divine institution, though not a sacrament, nor peculiar to the church of Christ. It is proper that every commonwealth for the good of society make laws to regulate marriage, which all citizens are bound to obey insofar as they do not transgress the laws of God, with a reference to Acts 5 29. Yeah. Uh we have two sacraments, not more than two, and so marriage, though a divine institution, uh in the very earliest chapters of the Bible, it is not a sacrament. And uh partly because it's instituted so early in the Bible, uh, it is uh not unique just to the church, but to all of humanity. It's something that's given to mankind um to uh to make use of and employ for various purposes and reasons. Um I don't know, you may want to comment on that, but then we also want to deal with the first occurrence of the word commonwealth here.

SPEAKER_00 6:16

Uh well, it does say it's marriage is not a sacrament, and I think that's accurate because a sacrament has to be something that is open to everybody. Everybody should be baptized, everybody should take the Lord's Supper when they're a communicate member. Uh marriage, not everybody gets married. Um, same thing with uh like ordination, not everybody gets ordained as an officer. Um, so we may call this even an ordinance. Um, some have talked about marriage as if it's a means of grace. I don't know if that's appropriate. People tell me that's not for ordination. Uh I don't know. It has some similarities though, you know, in terms of um uh being an ordinance, being something that we will talk about our marriages as if, you know, we learn things about ourselves and our sinfulness from it. Uh, but we need to be careful not to say it's a sacrament, because then it seems like you're you're excluding the church from attendance at some of these or uh being in a marriage for some of these. So I think that's the reason why we we would not consider it a sacrament, one of the reasons.

SPEAKER_01 7:15

Yeah, one, certainly one. Um yeah, marriage belongs to society at large as well. Uh it it's not peculiar to the Church of Christ. Though some marriages are certainly peculiar, uh I think we can all agree. Uh it's for the good of society, and so the Commonwealth may make laws to regulate marriage, which we're bound to obey as long as they don't uh violate the scriptures. That that that's sensible, right? We've talked about this to a degree in the past. Um our society has rules for marriage. Um, I don't know if we want to talk about the the you know, there's laws about homosexual marriage now in play in the United States. Um there's nothing requiring us to break God's law and those kinds of things.

SPEAKER_00 8:00

Um but uh it does make an interesting question about the difference if there's some distinctions between civil marriages and ecclesial marriages. Sure. And that that may be necessary for something that's civilly considered a marriage that we ecclesiastically don't recognize, such as you know, multiple partners, or you know, there's there's articles that used to come out like 10 years ago about thruples and trying to get married. Um, we wouldn't recognize those as proper marriages. Um, but I think what can become dangerous is if you try to think of something as an ecclesial marriage, but not a civil marriage. Some people will ask you to do things like that because of, you know, benefits that somebody has that they don't want to lose, so they don't tell the state that they're married, but can the church say that we're married? And I I don't think that this is allowing for something like that. Uh I think rather it's you know making a distinction that um uh there may be things that are against God's law that we don't recognize that the state does, but I don't think we do things and just don't tell the state about it. That's not the place that we're in right now and relationship between church and state. Yeah, that's good.

BCO 59-2

SPEAKER_01 9:15

Yeah. So 59 2 gets into um marriage related to Christians in particular, though. Christians should marry in the Lord, therefore it is fit that their marriage be solemnized by a lawful minister, that special instruction be given them and suitable prayers offered when they enter into this relation. Uh it's pretty clear. There's not a uh parenthetical here, and I can't remember the scripture right off the top of my head, but when Paul's encouraging folks in the ways of marriage, and he makes reference to a woman uh no longer being married, uh, she says she should seek to marry, or she can seek to marry, and but only in the Lord. So we marry other Christians. Uh we're not to we're not to join ourselves with someone who doesn't uh also believe. Um, this this is not addressing people who may be in marriages and uh they were unbelievers and one is now a believer uh uh through the ministry of the word. Um that's that's not what we're talking about. But if you're gonna get married and you're a Christian, you've got to go find a Christian to marry. Um find find a good, godly spouse, uh, and then find one that's fit for you and marry them.

SPEAKER_00 10:22

Yeah. Um now there's some people that may have a problem with this in that not in the marrying in the Lord, but that it should be solemnized by a lawful minister, or that it is fit. Now, this is language of fit, not ought or shall or something like that. Um, because it could be the captain on the boat, it could be, you know, a magistrate, something like that, and we would consider it a lawful marriage. I mean, how many you have couples that come in, I think, that have had um uh, you know, been married in before they were believers, come into the church and we recognize that they are lawfully married. Uh so it's not only that a lawful minister is the only one who can do it, but you know, if it's happening within the church, I do think this tells us it should be a lawful minister. Minister in the directory tends to mean a uh teaching elder. Um, so typically um most uh Presbyterians have not recognized ruling elders as having the authority to uh conduct a marriage. Um I'm sure there's some sort of two office guy out there sometime that's made that argument, but uh most of the time that doesn't happen. Um this this does come straight from the original directory for worship, so some of that language is is taken uh directly from there. And um so part of the reason why we have uh this language that's in there. Although um some have said maybe there's a case that ministers shouldn't be doing this. However, we've taken the Westminster you know position that it is right for a lawful minister to do this.

SPEAKER_01 12:01

Yeah. I wish that I got I wish I wish that being a lawful minister meant that I was also the captain of a boat, but it seems like it only works the other way around. They they can act as a lawful minister in that way. Yeah, special instruction be given, suitable prayers offered when they enter into this. This is certainly gonna refer to what an uh uh you know premarital counseling, um, probably some amount of instruction in the actual marriage ceremony at the at the wedding service, certainly not as lengthy as premarital counseling. Don't spend five weeks preaching in the wedding service, but um you're gonna address things that need to be addressed. You're gonna pray for them, uh pray for them before, of course, and and during uh the ceremony. Um yeah, so these things are just around the solemnization of a marriage. Uh interesting that it doesn't it doesn't speak to vows at all. Um, you know, Morton Smith address mentions vows in his commentary on this particular paragraph, but it's not mentioned here. Uh I don't it's actually it's not mentioned in any part of this chapter. But that's typically what we associate with a marriage, is that we're joining together and we make vows uh to one another in the presence of the Lord. I was curious if you had any thoughts on on that. I I meant to go look up in uh in Westminster to see the chapter on vows and uh I I don't believe it mentions marriage in there.

SPEAKER_00 13:25

No, it's it's suggested in the appendix for a form of uh marriage, though. Sure.

SPEAKER_01 13:30

Oh yeah, that's right. Yeah, in the BCO appendix, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 13:32

Yeah, the BCO appendix. Um I think the one thing that stands out here is it makes marriage sound very simple, and I think that's on purpose. It's good. Um marriages can be today very elaborate affairs. I think within the Church of England coming out of the Roman Catholic Church, he had a whole mass that preceded it. Um I think this is an acknowledgement of there's some prayers, right? And there's some special instruction, and then they, you know, then they solemnize a marriage. So it seems like it's very simple. I I saw a marriage once where it actually was, they did it on a Sunday after the church service ended. They just went up there, um, they prayed, took their vows, had some uh like a five-minute instruction, and then everybody in the church was invited to the uh the reception. I thought that's awesome. I I kind of like that. Yeah, that's uh it was separate from the worship service, but it was it was so simple that it was just like it doesn't have to be a big deal. Man, they saved a whole bunch of money in terms of rental property, and you know, they just had like refreshments after the worship service. So if you're looking to save money, people will talk about it later as uh something that was cool, and you can you can do something as simple as that.

SPEAKER_01 14:38

That's a good compelling argument, by the way. Hey, people will think this was awesome if you do it like this. That's a really compelling reason to uh have a simple wedding. Of course, I speak as the father of four young daughters, so I I'd I desire simple weddings. Yes.

BCO 59-3

SPEAKER_01 14:54

All right, uh 59.3. Now, this is a constitutional paragraph, and so I think uh I'll read the whole thing, but then let's let's just talk about the original sentence that it was uh before not too long ago, and then we can talk about what's been added and why it was made constitutional. So 59.3, marriage is only to be between one man and one woman, in reference to Genesis 2 and Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7, in accordance with the word of God. Therefore, ministers in the Presbyterian Church in America who solemnize marriages shall only solemnize marriages between one man and one woman. Uh so the original uh paragraph was just the first sentence marriage is only to be between one man and one woman in accordance with the word of God. I don't think we're gonna get a lot of argument here, right? Like this is pretty straightforward. If God wanted us to have more than one wife or more than one husband, he would have made more than one Eve for Adam or more than one Adam for Eve, but that's not the way it was. Uh he gave one and one uh what you know, one plus one is is one marriage in in the scriptures, and uh there's the the parenthetical references. Jared, why don't you tell us so there was an overture brought in was it 2017? 2018. Okay, that came to make this whole chapter constitutional. Uh you were on overtures that year. Why don't you you know reflect a little bit for us?

SPEAKER_00 16:12

Yeah. Um there was uh an overture to make all of chapter 59 constitutional. I think that's partly in light of a burgerfeld. Um there's also some uh chaplains who really liked the idea because uh they would uh be asked if they would participate uh in some things, whether they were solemnizing a marriage or asked to participate in a marriage that was between um same-sex couples, and they would say no, but they wanted to be very clear that their denomination says I cannot do this, and they can just present the paper and and that way they're not they're not pressured on it. And so um that's that's when this came uh about. But it seemed like every single section had something somebody wanted to wordsmith. So the 59-1, some people who wanted uh more liberty uh on between you know church and state wanted to work through some of those issues, wanted to wordsmith that. Um there was uh 59-2, some people thought ministers shouldn't be doing. Uh there's like one person that said, you know, there's an opposition that ministers shouldn't perform marriages that I found in a Puritan somewhere, and maybe we should allow for that. And um, you know, the other ones, like uh the instructions in four, five, six, and seven. Um, some people said, especially this with the seventh one, like, I don't keep records. Am I going to be cited if I don't keep proper records of my my marriages? And so it got to be uh so much of a uh a debate about trying to wordsmith it, and we had we didn't have the times to rewrite all of chapter 59. Eventually there was a motion just to make it 59.3. Uh well, I mean, first there was a minority report, and then we were sent back to say give us a majority report that does something smaller. We settled on 59.3, but 59.3 at the time only said marriage is to be between one man and one woman. And so we did set put in there, I believe, only put the scripture citations in there. And then um uh there was also we wondered, like, okay, this is saying almost exactly the same thing as Westminster. Does this even help? And I remember I said I was sitting next to a guy, I'll tell the story, uh Daniel Schrock, who used to be in the uh PCA, he's now in the OPC. He was sitting next to me in Overtures and he said, Hey, should I should I make a motion to add a sentence um to this you know to make it clear that those are the only marriages that um they can do? And I was like, No, this is going so long and and nobody's gonna have any kind of a uh desire to do anything like that. He's like, I think I'll do it. And so he stands up and just offers, therefore, ministers in the Presbyterian church in America who solemnize marriages. So there he he satisfied the guy that was like, Well, what if they don't? Well, the ones who do shall only solemnize marriages between one man and one woman. And everybody loved it. And I was just like, never listen to advice for me again. Because I was like, yeah, nobody wanted to do that. That's how uh that's how that sentence uh got in there. And and it it basically was it was almost unanimous. There's like two guys that didn't vote for it, one that wanted more, and one guy who was just like uh abstaining because he's like, I think we could do better, but everybody was was okay with it. I I think there's some sort of a narrative out there that said, um, wow, we couldn't even get all of chapter 59. Well, there's reasons for that. It was it was weird, nitpicky reasons. Once we had 59.3, everybody was satisfied with it, thought it would be good enough cover for chaplains and also for pastors to be clear. Like, you you're not to go to this, you're not to to bless this. Even if you're not the guy doing it, I think the message wanted to be sent. Like, don't go to there to offer a prayer or something like that. You should because that solemnizes the marriage. Um, so that we wanted to be clear, and I think that that was achieved, uh, even though there's probably some of us that would have liked to have seen more of the chapter uh done, but uh that's how we got out with 51.3. So that's way more than you wanted to know about 59.3, but uh there you go.

SPEAKER_01 20:01

So 59.3 was doubled in size uh against Jared's wishes and constitutionalized. Um I if Scott were here, I'd ask him what the numbers were on that whole thing. But I don't I don't remember this being a very contentious vote from either GA or the presbyteries in the middle. I mean, how are you gonna disagree with this? Is there anything else there? Let me click over to Morton and see what he says. Uh well his was not as long before he just I love Morton Smith's original because it was just one sentence. Oh, and there were no parent parentheticals back then. Morton just says, based upon the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 19, it is clear that marriage is to be monogamous and not uh polygamous. Yeah, there you go. Uh and uh yeah, Pear in his commentary references what you did too. He says he he talks about it being in light of the legalization of same-sex marriage by the US. Um the 47th Assembly gave uh gave it full constitutional authority. Good.

BCO 59-4

unknown 21:04

Okay.

SPEAKER_01 21:05

594. The parties should be of such years of discretion as to be capable of making their own choice, and if they be underage or live with their parents, the consent of the parents or others under whose care they are should be previously obtained and well certified to the minister before he proceeds to solemnise the marriage. So uh pastors shouldn't be marrying uh young people uh unless he gets permission from their older people. Uh and uh people who are getting married should be old enough to choose to do so, more or less. But come on.

SPEAKER_00 21:36

Yeah, uh this may sound a bit confusing, but it's almost like telling the pastor to do his homework to make sure that there's not some sort of illegal thing to make sure you're not accidentally marrying, you know, two 16 year olds together or uh that their parents aren't going to object, because that's that's even was part of the old you know ceremony, if anybody has any objection. Um the original actually. Had uh a publication of the marriage that needed to happen before some they would be married, and I think part of it was uh for objections. Further down, isn't it? Um so in the original, it was in this section in this paragraph. I think it might have been put um elsewhere as well.

SPEAKER_01 22:18

It's in section six down here.

SPEAKER_00 22:20

Yeah. But um just the idea of doing your homework to make sure I mean this should come out in premarital counseling too, right? Have you been married before? Are you still married? Are you wanting me to do an ecclesiastical marriage that isn't civilly legal? You know, like these are important questions to uh to ask, as well as consent of parents. Um now, I think here the should, you know, should is different than shall. And there may be circumstances where you're dealing with an exception here of parents that um are not believers or aren't in the picture or aren't legal guardians. Um, so this is good advice. This is really good advice. Follow this. There may be an exception to this, uh, somehow. I don't know. Something I haven't thought of.

SPEAKER_01 23:04

But unfortunately, we live in an age where most most people that are getting married are getting married much older than we would advise them to marry and and not necessarily much younger. And so it's probably not something we run into a whole whole lot anymore. Yeah.

BCO 59-5

SPEAKER_01 23:17

Um yeah. 59-5 is similar, right? Parents should neither compel their children to marry contrary to their inclinations nor deny their consent without just and important reasons. I I appreciate the implication here that parents are to be involved in in the process, right? This is not only talking about um children who are young, maybe you know, 16, 17, 18 year olds, but this is just talking about in general. Um parents can't force their children to marry somebody that they don't want to marry, but they also shouldn't deny their blessing and consent when they um unless they have a very important and just reason for uh to do so. But the the whole the whole sentence has this uh this weight to it that parents are involved in uh in their children getting married, and that there should be a a significant part of the conversation leading up to it. I mean, as a dad, I appreciate that, right? Yeah. Don't know if my daughters will, but hopefully.

SPEAKER_00 24:09

Um yeah, this was another paragraph though. I remember during the debate, somebody wanted to just delete this paragraph at in doing the whole uh chapter. And actually the uh argument was interesting that the word inclinations has changed over time. And his concern was what if you have somebody that said that they were same-sex attracted at one time, now they're getting married. Is it wrong for you for them to say we we want to encourage you against what you said were your inclinations were earlier? And so like this could be confusing. So um I but the the word inclinations did not mean that back when it was originally this is more of a you know, not no forced or uh marriages, which is interesting. I I was in seminary next to an Indian couple and was an arranged marriage by Christian parents. They had a lovely marriage. Um so I don't know if 595 is a little bit culturally uh relevant there, or is it about obeying and honoring your mother and father? That's that's an interesting conversation that I I I it would be interesting to hear from somebody in a country where they have arranged marriages and see what they thought about that.

BCO 59-6

SPEAKER_01 25:23

596. Marriage is of a public nature. The welfare of civil society, the happiness of families, and the credit of Christianity are deeply interested in it. Therefore, the purpose of marriage should be sufficiently published a proper time previously to the solemnization of it. It is enjoined on all ministers to be careful that in this matter they obey the laws of the community to the extent that those laws do not transgress the laws of God as interpreted by the Constitution of the PCA, and that they may not destroy the peace and comfort of families. Ministers should be assured that with respect to the parties applying to them, no just objections lie against their marriage. Um I love the beginning of this. Marriage is of a public nature, uh, and there are they they identify three things that have a great interest in marriage, right? The welfare of society at large, the happiness of families, and the credit of Christianity. Uh marriage is I mean, marriage was the first society that God formed in the garden. It's the basis of everything in terms of societal existence these days. Uh it it forms uh happy families, right? Uh if mom and dad are married and things are good, the family's good, uh, generally speaking, right? It's there's there's contentedness and happiness and the credit of Christianity. That has a lot probably to do with what Paul talks about in relationship to Christ and the church and marriage being picture. Um yeah. Yeah, I mean uh you jump in, Jared. I don't know what else you want to say about that, or we can talk about the the publishing part.

SPEAKER_00 26:47

Yeah, I think that's a uh for some reason I thought of I'm a good husband, so I will watch chick flicks with my wife occasionally. I was thinking of like Sweet Home Alabama, okay. Where she goes to she gets engaged, but she was still legally married, and so she had to like sort that out. So, you know, you you need to make sure you don't have a sweet home Alabama um situation here where uh you know you have to take care of the fact that they've been previously married or you know, whatever it may be.

SPEAKER_01 27:14

So what counts as sufficiently published? I mean, if I tweet about it, does that count or has it gotta be something more than that? Uh this is so weird.

SPEAKER_00 27:24

Uh the original um earlier actually says like three Sabbath days before, like published, like basically announced in the church or something. Oh man. So published by the minister three several Sabbath days in the congregation. So I I guess I assume like everybody in the community is at the church. So like everybody's here, so if we stay at three, but that that'd be awkward. Like I didn't know this marriage was happening. It's like it was in the announcements. Like that's this has been a this has been a problem forever.

SPEAKER_01 27:54

Yeah. People don't read the announcements. Yep. Also, then what happens if they don't get invited to the wedding? Like it's been published for a while, but then they don't get the invitation. That's awkward. Awkward. Awkward. Uh yeah, I mean, it's similar to what we've already talked about from 59-4. Uh, you know, ministers need to figure this stuff out. Um there's a part there about doing it uh lawfully, right, and in relationship to the laws that God's put in the land. Uh and so um, you know, uh there's not really a whole lot to say there. I mean, what we do you say it up there? I say it down here when I marry somebody, you know, uh in accordance with the laws of you know this state, I you know, whatever, whatever.

SPEAKER_00 28:32

Yeah, I say Commonwealth because I'm in Pennsylvania.

SPEAKER_01 28:34

Oh yeah, all right. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Yeah. So fancy.

SPEAKER_00 28:39

Um, I'm just compliant with the directory and the language of Commonwealth.

SPEAKER_01 28:43

So you know, I I've done a I've done well it doesn't matter. I in the in the weddings that I've done, I don't recall anybody at the the court office certifying my ordination when I came to turn in the marriage certificate. Like anybody could have signed that and taken it in, and they probably wouldn't have asked any questions.

SPEAKER_00 29:04

It's very weird. I think only if you get like an objection to it, you know.

SPEAKER_01 29:09

Okay.

SPEAKER_00 29:09

So well to annul it or something.

SPEAKER_01 29:13

Oh, right. They would come and they would come and check on it after the fact. Well. Alright. Uh

BCO 59-7

SPEAKER_01 29:22

this has been kind of short and sweet. We got one more section. 597. The minister should keep a proper register of the names of all persons whom he marries and of the time of their marriage for the perusal of all who it may concern. Whom it may concern. Yeah, we had a a friend of ours uh ask us to consider 597 with a special question, and the question was simply, what's up with that? Uh I mean seriously. Like I keep records of all these things. I keep records of baptisms and I keep records of uh marriages, uh, and and then I keep a record of everything I teach in whatever context. But that's just because I'm weird and I like to keep track of things and to remember stuff. But it does seem odd that uh the minister should do this. Yeah, can you think of any reason why this would be in here?

SPEAKER_00 30:08

This goes all the way back to the 1600s, the original. Um I don't know if they had county registers then, you know, in England. Uh and I don't know if you've ever done any research on uh your ancestors. After a while, you don't have government records. You have baptism certificates and you have church marriage certificates. So there's there's a real um the the church in the 1600s was the record-keeping place of the society. Uh it only eventually do you have the government starting to keep track of birth certificates and wedding certificates after that. So I think this is coming from a time in which uh there was um there was more of a responsibility for the church. So the people who come and peruse it for legal matters, right? Um, they come to the church and you have a record uh there rather than at the county courthouse. And so I think it comes from that. Um I mean today you can make a an argument for it just to keep good records, uh, in case somebody, you know, wants to know, hey, when when did this happen in this church and want to remember it? I I don't think 597 is as essential as it used to be. In the 1600s, yeah, you better keep good records today. I mean, I've got a I've got a Google Drive folder that has all the weddings that I've done, but I don't have like a folder that's in my desk.

SPEAKER_01 31:29

Our senior minister, uh when we get talking about baptisms and stuff, he uh he says, you know, I I'm pretty sure I was baptized. We're like, what? He's like, My mom, when she was alive, she was she was getting pretty up there, but when he's like, Well, my mom says I was, we're like, okay, and he goes, but she doesn't have the certificate anywhere. So we like to tease him that maybe he's not really baptized. Um fortunately, we're not Roman Catholics, so we don't have to invalidate his entire ministry as a result of that. But uh Yeah, keep track of things. That's all I'm saying. Sorry. I was trying the anecdote thing. Did it work? No, didn't land well.

SPEAKER_00 32:07

Well, I uh what's what's the word for that? Uh I don't know. Uh not a probationary baptism. I don't know if you do a baptism that's like just in case. I don't know.

SPEAKER_01 32:18

Our people would think it was weird if I if I got up there one Sunday and baptized our senior pastor.

SPEAKER_00 32:24

Just do it like uh uh uh nacho libre style, right? Just surprise him one day. You have not been baptized?

SPEAKER_01 32:33

Oh boy.

SPEAKER_00 32:34

Well, you've seen that movie. You have to have seen that movie.

SPEAKER_01 32:37

I have, it's been a long time, so I apologize.

SPEAKER_00 32:40

Oh, you need to rectify that. Uh that's like a yearly a yearly tradition in the Nelson household.

Wrong Information

SPEAKER_01 32:46

All right. Listeners, that that is that's marriage. Uh that's that's our chapter on marriage. But I was gonna say, if if my timing is correct, if if the spreadsheet we have made is accurate, and if it's wrong, I blame it all on Scott, even though he hasn't looked at it in a long time. Uh starting next week, as you're listening, we should have some episodes on overtures coming out for the upcoming General Assembly. So it should be around the middle of May right now, as you're hearing this, and uh close to the last week of May, we'll be recording and um releasing those. We expect we'll probably probably have a dozen episodes, I suppose, on overtures this year. There might be a special episode in there somewhere, too. Yeah, and we and we should have a special episode coming out at some point. So uh just just listen up um and and focus. And we we're gonna do some stuff on GA ahead of time. We might have a couple episodes for GA, like kind of prep besides overtures. You know, we've done a lot of this in the past. I don't know exactly what's gonna look like, and then we'll probably have at least one episode of recap after the fact to kind of uh recount what takes place in Louisville. So if you're gonna be at GA as you're listening to this, definitely get in touch with us and let us know. We wanna we wanna connect with you while we're there. Maybe we'll try to um I don't know, maybe we'll try to put out some kind of announcement of where we're gonna be at a certain point, and you guys can we can all try to find each other and hang out a little

Embarrassing Marriages?

SPEAKER_01 34:10

bit. But uh Jared, I don't know. Anything else we need to do in terms of housekeeping? I don't think so.

SPEAKER_00 34:16

I think um We didn't share any great stories of our most embarrassing marriage or wedding. Do you have one you want to share? I don't.

SPEAKER_01 34:25

My only fun line about um marriages my I've only done two uh weddings in my whole ministry so far, and uh one of them was my mom uh and and her her now husband. So you always have to get the wording.

SPEAKER_00 34:41

Yeah, you have to get the wording of that right when people ask it.

SPEAKER_01 34:43

I've done that wrong before, it's weird. Yeah. You married who? Don't worry about it. Yeah, keep moving. These are not the George you're looking for. Uh I suppose as Obi-Wan Kenobi would say these uh this podcast is over. So thank you for joining us. Uh that ended weird. Uh we've got we've got show notes for you. Uh go down and check, take a look. Uh appreciate y'all sticking around. Appreciate those of y'all who support the show. Uh, you know, we're in touch with most of y'all on a regular basis, and and I think you know that we we love you guys, and uh we're we're mindful that um that you make use of this and that you listen, and uh we we just appreciate it so much. It's fun to do it. And um if you've got ideas on on what you want to see as we get close to the end of the book, let us know. Scott and I are starting to talk to Jared about what sunsetting polity matters might look like. Not permanently necessarily, but just you know what life looks like after the BCO. We didn't set out to be podcasters, uh we set out to provide a resource on this uh subject matter. So if you've got thoughts or ideas about future content um that would be valuable, uh talk to us. Uh let us know, text us, call us, whatever the case may be, and we'll we'll be thinking about all those things.

SPEAKER_00 35:50

Detailed commentary of the SJC manual.

unknown 35:52

Yeah, man.

SPEAKER_01 35:56

Oh boy, SJC manual. Uh yeah, parliamentary procedure, right? That's where everybody wants to listen to in their podcast player these days. Uh SJC manual, what's the other one? The uh the RAO. Ooh, yeah, fun stuff. That just makes me tired thinking about the appendix. We need to do the appendix. We do need to talk about the appendix. We've got years and years of material. Yes. Uh I don't know what I left out, but it doesn't really matter at this point. Uh Jared, until next time, say goodbye. Goodbye. Y'all take care.