The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-06-18

prOtect1On OF the SanCtlty OF marriage.
II h e j GU n a has asked Mr.. Thurman
to express his views on the subject of
matrimony and marriage rites, and he has
given his views in the form Of an APP
proved interview, which will be found
below:
my views on the marriage ques-
ton? Certainly. You doubtless have
reference to what are considered my
peculiar positions in refusing to Off
ciate except where certain conditions
are met.
"And first, let me say that ought
not to be considered so singular in
this matter, and would not be If men
generally, and ministers especially,
had as high a regard for Christian
consistency as they have for popular
approval and hoary custom.
I'm our desire to please men COT
course we never think Of the fees)
we are easily tempted to make I'M
warranted concessions and to prostt-
tute the most sacred functions of our
high calling to this end by indulging
in merely formal and meaningless
utterances which either have no real
application to the parties concerned,
or which are positively forbidden in
the word of God. Of course, we do
not mean to thus take the name of
God in vain nor do we intend to traf-
fic in religious rites and in unctuous
utterances at SO much per couple, but
it simply means that in our prepare
ton for our profession we have been
taught to be parrots in such matters,
and the parrot practice once acquired
is hard to lose, especially when every
body expects it and is willing to pay
well for it.
lone Of your correspondents has
recently charged the clergy with a
good share Of responsibility for the
laxity with which the marriage rela-
ton is regarded, adding that tho q
man we'll advanced in years, he had
yet to learn of a clergyman ever re-
fusing to perform the marriage cere-
mony whether the applicant were
good, bad or Indifferent This charge
has more foundation in fact than il
should have. The rule in many cases
is to ask but one question: Have you
a Iicense?' and this is asked because
the law requires it, and the fine which
threatens would be more than the fee
Divorce a Bar to Marriage.
"But you want my peculiar posi-
tons. Here they are:
"First-I refuse to officiate wher
either Of the parties has been di
vorced.
mo, it. matters not whether thu
divorce was secured on scripture
grounds or on purely legal grounds
The right to be divorced does no
necessarily carry with it the mora
right to remarry,. and certainly doe
not make 1t obligatory upon any min
lister to assist in launching out on /
second venture one who has failed Il
the first. ,4 u Ca
not always tell the truth; the one VIII
is declared innocent is often the on
most guilty. Mutual concessions an
agreements and financial considera
lions have figured so largely in tn
legal aspects of the case that tn
moral status Is entirely lost, and a
it is impossible for me to get at al
the facts in the case, and as I ar
very liable to become a party to a
immoral compact, I prefer to err,
I err at all, on the side Of virtue an
of decency and of right.
1.-THE minister, of all men, shout
throw the weight Of his infuenc
against this growing evil, and shout
be a leader, at the front, instead {
following public sentiment, and bring
ing up the rear. He should help
make sentiment, and to do this h
needs to take a radical as we'll as
definite position, and not be foreve
moving in fog.
Believer and Unbeliever.
"Second-I refuse to marry be
lever to an unbeliever.
"On what grounds? The New Te
lament command. BE not unequal
yoked together with unbelievers.' TT
Christian Of to-day, in the church, HI
his portion especially In the epistl
of Paul. These instructions have fl
him a special application and a divi1
Z authority, and in this scripture, ar
many others, he is taught the san
lesson that was figuratively eXpresse
to Israel thus: Thou shall not plo
an OK and an ass together The gre
distinction between men in the Ne
Testament is not moral or immors
virtuous or vicious, good or bad, b
this: believer or unbeliever. Faith
Christ is the great emand-unbeli
is the condemning sin. It matters n
how moral g man is, If he is not
believer on the Lord Jesus Christ, tt
Christian may not be yoked with hi
to do so is to sin. If it is wrong for
believer to be yoked with an unbelie
er then it follows of necessity that
is wrong for a minister, knowingly
yoke them. Faith in Christ max
men children of God, unbelief cons
tutes them children of the wicked OF
Christ and Belial have nothing
common, and the members of the o
may not be joined to the other.
From this simple, plain and O.
repeated command OIL the lnSp1r
apostle do not find 1t difficult
arrive quickly at the conclusion tn
l have no right as a minister Of Chr
to pretend to join together what G
has forbidden to be Joined.
What about the argument that
Christian wife may be the means
saving her unbelieving husban
That's good argument in ca:
where, thru ignorance or past ind
ference to Gods requirements, su
compact has been made between
believer and an unbeliever, but su
an argument is not allowed to
away with the command. We m
not do evil that good may come. Go
work never requires our disobedier
to His commands. And then, 1t d.
not work out thus in most cases.
Ever hear about the two ladi
each of whom had parrot? c
of these parrots could pray like
saint, the other could swear like
trooper. The swearing propensit
of the one were a great trial to
owner, and 1t was finally agreed
make it the companion Of the pr;
ing bird, so that it might cease
swear and learn to pray instead.
result was that the praying par
ceased to pray and learned to swe
almost human, for so it usually h.
pens among men. When a belle
marries an unbeliever to convert hi
the years usually prove that
faith which began Its task with
act Of disobedience has almost who
yielded itself to the unbelief of |
~. 10 4I., 49, -.