Should the church's role in marriage go beyond the symbolic and traditional?
Photo by Hashimotos
This summer has been one marked with a whole lot of weddings.
As a clergy person, I get a front row seat in this extremely important life passage. I read them their vows, wait with nervous grooms in the back hallway, and watch mothers dab away tears in the front row.
Really, it’s an intimate position to be in, and in the majority of the cases, you scarcely know the couple you marry, and yet you remain a part of them forever.
According to theweddingreport.com, the average wedding this year costs $18,859. No small fee, that is for sure. I think I bought my car for less than that.
I can assure you that the costs involved on the church-end of the wedding business are a miniscule percentage of that grand total (which is okay). And yet, the wedding doesn’t seem to take place without the pastor. The most affordable part of the ceremony is the ceremony; you can’t really have the reception without it.
It all starts in the church, literally and metaphorically speaking. Even if you get married outdoors or not in a traditional church, chances are you had to hire a pastor to do the honors. And guess who it is that endorses that pastor enabling them to have “the power vested in me” line? You got it, the Church.
This got me thinking. What exactly is the Church’s role in the whole process of marriage? Is the importance of the role of the Church simply tradition? Or, does it extend beyond that? Is it Church that validates the marriage?
I certainly believe that the Church does have a role in marriage. I do not attempt to argue here whether or not the Church should, but rather point out the obvious and unavoidable: the Church most definitely has a major role.
As a clergy person I take my role of wedding officiant seriously. As such, I require all couples to go through pre-marital counseling. Has anyone called off the wedding based on the counseling? Not in my experience.
However, I do think it gives trained counselors the opportunity to see red flags and to teach communication and coping skills. I believe this is the minimum that Church’s should require of the couples whose marriage they endorse. But should the responsibility of the Church be extended further?
Should we who endorsed the marriage be working harder to sustain the marriage and decrease the staggering divorce rates? I believe we should. The problem is how.
At least 90 percent of the couples I marry I never see again. They are not members of my church and many don’t even live in Michigan. One theologian suggests that pastors maintain the integrity of the Church’s role in marriage by only performing weddings for members.
I agree with the foundation of the argument, but I don’t believe it will change the outcome; there are plenty of other pastors to seek out, and if they want to be married, they will be. The bottom line of the Church’s role won’t change by my refusal to do non-member weddings.
Where does the responsibility extend and how as a greater Church do we fulfill our end of the deal? It is certainly a question that is left annoyingly unanswered as I pronounce, “With the power vested in me, you are husband and wife.”
Darcy Crain-Polly is the Associate Minister at the First Congregational Church of Ann Arbor. She can be reached directly by email.
Comments
BhavanaJagat
Fri, Aug 5, 2011 : 1:34 a.m.
Thank you Bill Wilson for reading this piece twice. The things that are missing in this piece are more important than the things that appear here. This post belongs to the category called 'Faith'. What is the 'faith' of this author? We derive faith from scriptures or holy books and accept the authority of those authors. If a Church has any kind of authority to perform a marriage function, there must be something in the Scriptures or Holy Books that sanction the establishment of the Church to perform the function to perpetuate the vision or ideas stated in such documents. If I have to get married at this First Congregational Church of Ann Arbor, I want to ask this Pastor as to what verses would be cited to perform the marriage function. My question is, What is the faith used to perform the wedding? What faith the Pastor would use if her marriage has to be performed in her Church?
Bill Wilson
Sat, Aug 6, 2011 : 3:44 p.m.
BhavanaJagat wrote: Thank you Bill Wilson for reading this piece twice. The things that are missing in this piece are more important than the things that appear here. This post belongs to the category called 'Faith'. What is the 'faith' of this author? We derive faith from scriptures or holy books and accept the authority of those authors. If a Church has any kind of authority to perform a marriage function, there must be something in the Scriptures or Holy Books that sanction the establishment of the Church to perform the function to perpetuate the vision or ideas stated in such documents. If I have to get married at this First Congregational Church of Ann Arbor, I want to ask this Pastor as to what verses would be cited to perform the marriage function. My question is, What is the faith used to perform the wedding? What faith the Pastor would use if her marriage has to be performed in her Church? ----------------------------------------------------------- I read your post twice, as well. You state: "If a Church has any kind of authority to perform a marriage function, there must be something in the Scriptures or Holy Books that sanction the establishment of the Church to perform the function to perpetuate the vision or ideas stated in such documents." One wonders: what "Holy" books? All of the stories in the Bible, Torah, and Koran take their roots from much earlier Sumarian and Akkadian stories. We've know this conclusively since the time of George Smith. Any church is certainly free to setup its own hierarchy. It's the individual who grants it any power.
Censorship sucks
Wed, Aug 3, 2011 : 4:24 p.m.
Being a member of the clergy, how you could write a whole article questioning the role of the Church in marriage without mentioning God one time?
mentalNomad
Wed, Aug 3, 2011 : 4 p.m.
"It all starts in the church, literally and metaphorically speaking." -- No, it often does not. We live in a diverse community where it can start in a temple or a mosque or a courtroom. "And guess who it is that endorses that pastor enabling them to have "the power vested in me" line? You got it, the Church." -- The Church has that power only because the state enables it to. Also, what do you mean by the "Church"? Do you mean your own church or churches in general (I assume the latter since it is published here). Christian churches are extremely diverse with different approaches to marriage. The author seems to say that she thinks that pastors should only marry people they know and whose marriages will last. However, she then says that she still marries people she does not know because if she does not, someone else will. That argument does not show a lot of integrity. I think that means pastors everywhere have to be more careful who they allow to marry. If it is so important to protect the sanctity of marriage, some pastors should spend more time getting to know the couples they are marrying instead of denying other couples' legal rights to marry.
RuralMom
Wed, Aug 3, 2011 : 3:52 p.m.
I guess my question would be how much training does a particular minister/pastor have with couples and relationship issues. My younger sister turned to her pastor for help when her marriage was crumbling due to the husbands infidelity, and the pastor apparently had little to no training on infidelity or emotional abuse, making a horrible situation much worse for her & the children of this marriage.
Corey Lord
Wed, Aug 3, 2011 : 3:44 p.m.
I was married without a pastor. I was married by my hometown's mayor. The state actually gives "the power vested in me" to all officiants. The church adds their own "power" but church is not the basis. Marriage is supposed to be a civil institution in this country and its truly people like this who think the church NEEDS to be involved is what is stopping marriage from being accessible by all. Horrible article I must say. Very disappointed.
Craig Lounsbury
Wed, Aug 3, 2011 : 3:33 p.m.
It is worth noting one can be married by a judge too. Most Judges do marriage ceremonies,....... provided you plan to marry a member of the opposite sex. And that's the sticky part. The state needs to separate itself from religious morality/beliefs with regard marriage/civil unions. IMO. and for full disclosure I was married once in a church and never saw the pastor again. My second marriage was by a judge (thank you Judge Easthope). My wife and I attend church most every Sunday.
L. C. Burgundy
Wed, Aug 3, 2011 : 3:21 p.m.
Marriage in the US is a civil institution. You're an optional part of that. Almost anybody with $10 can become an officiant. Why you marry people you barely even know in your church is anybody's guess. Weird, rudderless article.
Craig Lounsbury
Wed, Aug 3, 2011 : 3:34 p.m.
"Marriage in the US is a civil institution" Not entirely , ask a gay couple
Bill Wilson
Wed, Aug 3, 2011 : 2:58 p.m.
I had to read that piece twice. I was certain: I'd missed something. But I was wrong. There was nothing to miss. I'm puzzled as to why it was written, but even more so, as to why it was placed on the website.