Magigi wrote:McReggae wrote:Mukiri wrote:They addressed it in church today.
First, only the wife is a member of the church. She serves in the choir. The pastor belongs to another church.
Second, there was a 2 hour interlude after the commotion began. All parties were listened to, grievances heard and councelling took place. 2 hours. After which (this much I'll trust the man of God) all parties wishing to distrupt the wedding apologized; one was in tears of remorse.
The couple was also counselled, after which they agreed to proceed with the wedding. The church lawyer is a pastor himself.
Spin docter!!
...Those issues were too heavy to be addressed in 2 hours...Five proper landings...
So let me get this straight, you make mistakes, reform, confess to your pastor and fiancee, go through counselling, make a public announcement 3 weeks before the wedding requesting anyone who is against it to speak up and nothing happens. You make the annoucement again at the ceremony and only THEN do people stand up to oppose the ceremony?
Isn't it a bit curious that the media house(s) were present for a rather kawaida (as in no big shot n the picture) wedding? Someone had given them advance notice of the drama expected to unfold!Why the need to air the drama on national TV if you are genuinely agrieved? This smacks more of revenge than genuine issues to me.
And the lady opposing it was doing it on grounds that she had been promised to be wed by the pastor. Forget the pastor and church lawyer, is a promise to wed another woman really a genuine reason to stop a wedding?
And how does land buying come to play in a wedding ceremony?
Disclaimer: I am not related to the groom or a member of his congregation