Yesterday, in liturgical practicum class, we discussed weddings. I asked about having the couple get married by a Justice of the Peace and then coming to the church to bless the marriage. Since I did the premarital, martial, and family counseling class at Garrett last spring, I have thought some about the whole process of weddings and getting married. Other people in my class have not thought so much about it.
I know that it’s not “traditional”. I know that some people get offended. It’s not a ditch that I’m willing to die in. But I would much rather be there in the liturgical sense, leading the community in worship and celebration of a union – of marriage – than doing the whole legal action stuff. I’d prefer to let the state take care of the legally bound stuff. I will gladly do premarital counseling, discernment, and a beautiful ceremony (within the canons of the church).
Posted by Heather Voss at April 14, 2004 06:28 PMI've been thinking about this whole thing for a long time -- probably ever since a marriage counselling workshop that was held at SWTS, what?, last year. And then again in canon law.
I got the feeling from other classmates that the general perception was, "I won't even discuss the issue unless the couple has already been married by the justice of the peace." I think that this position, rather than being a barrier to being married in the church, can be used as a point of discussion during the marriage counseling sessions.
Somewhere in there the topic can be opened.
"How do you feel about Christianity?"
"How do you feel about organized religion?"
"How do you feel about this church?"
"Do you think the state should dictate the church's theology?"
"Would you want to put me in the position of being an agent of the state?"
"Here's how we can work with that."
Going in as an assistant (most probably) may not allow for that; but it definitely will require a conversation with the rector. And then fine-tuning that particular theology so that when I'm on my own (so to speak) I will be able to incorporate that into whatever parish I end up at.
Either way, fun times ahead!!
Posted by: Reverend Ref at April 14, 2004 06:59 PMamen--state handle legal, but blessing from church is important.
yeah...and somehow it should be okay to do one and not the other. meaning, the church should not make civil marriage a prerequisite to marriage within the ecclesia.
Posted by: AngloBaptist at April 14, 2004 10:52 PMIn a conversation on this subject, my 'home' clergy mentioned the legal state part of the marriage as a 'convenience for the couple'. For couples who want a 'Christian wedding and Christian marriage', the clergy's 'agency' with the state is a convenience for the couple...they can focus on the Christian service and not on the legal service. The ultimate out for clergy is turning down the couple and suggesting the civil service and the availability of the Blessing, when they discern their understanding of a Christian marriage.
Posted by: Bill at April 15, 2004 07:50 AMWow. I really glad to see that some many people are at least thinking similarly to what I have been. I have wondered what happened to the seperation between church and state when it comes to marraige. I would really like to see marriage by the state simply create a bind between two people for fiscal reasons and the like. I don't think the state should be dictating what marriage and love means.
I could rant on and on but it really seems to me like we need to rewrite some laws.
Posted by: djweso at April 15, 2004 07:57 AMRevRef - thanks. that was helpful. more articulate than i was in class - but again, didn't necessarily think of it as a new issue. hadn't worked on the "way i would approach it". and i need to i guess if i'm really going to follow through.
djweso - it's just because you're such a great example on this topic! i hadn't even thought of the whole idea of seperating "marriage" and "blessing" before i started seminary 3 years ago.
Posted by: heather at April 15, 2004 08:56 AM