On marriage
17/08/14 05:02
One of the roles played by he church is to be a keeper of tradition and memory. You can see carefully preserved history in museums, but just keeping the archives and putting them on display is not the same thing as keeping traditions. Traditions are changing and growing entities that weave their way through the generations reminding us of our connections with other times. In the church we take seriously the role of honoring the past by not forgetting the journey that led our people to the present generation.
There are a few other keepers of tradition in our society. One such place is the court system. It evolves and changes, but it remains rooted in the history of our people.
But there aren’t too many keepers of tradition in our society. Most public media, such as television, are terrible at keeping tradition. Watch a wedding on television, and you get a silly mishmash of old words that have been separated from their meaning. There is some sense that a formal occasion like a wedding needs to have some of the beautiful old words from the past, but there is no connection with the living and growing tradition. Often a television wedding will have words and symbols that you wouldn’t see in a contemporary church wedding, but those words and symbols are used out of context, without an understanding of the meanings behind the traditions.
Sometimes when a couple comes to me to help plan their wedding, they say that they want a “traditional” wedding. But they don’t know what that means. They are longing for a connection with the past and the heritage of our people, but they have not learned those traditions. Too often, the word “traditional” when used by couples in reference to weddings doesn’t mean traditional at all. It means like they have seen before and that means on television.
Television weddings are rarely even complete in terms of the liturgy. If you remove the advertisements from a television program, the program doesn’t last as long as a genuinely traditional wedding. So television deletes the reading of scripture, for example. Remove the sacred words that have been treasured by our people for millennia and you remove one of our links with the past. Television weddings have some sense that the couple must assent to vows, so they almost always have the words “I do.” Rarely do they display the tradition of the couple exchanging complete wedding vows by repeating them after the pastor. In the liturgy of our church the vows of intention, which are not the same as the wedding vows, are answered with the words, “I will,” not “I do.” That change was made a half a century ago when the words at the beginning of the vows were changed from “Do you take . . .” to “Will you have . . .” There have been many other changes in words in the liturgies of the church. Liturgy is not static. But the changes are forged in the context of a deep awareness of the history and a deep respect for the past.
Playing “pick and choose” with old words is hardly honoring the past.
There is a definite trend toward the secularization of weddings. Wedding “venues” away from churches are popular and market their services aggressively. They offer “complete” services, including providing officiants. The officiants rarely are educated and rarely possess any knowledge of the history and traditions of marriage. At their best they are well-meaning people who are trying to provide a service to couples. At their worst they are charlatans and hucksters who are simply trying to make a buck off of a couple at a vulnerable point in their lives whose parents are willing to spend a lot of money on a single day. The wedding industry is a multi-billion dollar industry and people aren’t spending much of that money on the services of churches. In the average church wedding the bride’s dress cost two to four times the cost of all of the services of the church, including honoraria for musicians, ministers and church wedding coordinators. People can spent up to 10 times the cost of church services on the photographer. And receptions are where they really unleash the wallet.
These secular officiants simply want to get a bit of all of that spending. And they are willing to do so by not consuming too much money or too much time. They can’t personalize their services because they don’t know the couple. In many cases they haven’t even met the couple more than a simple interview before the wedding. They don’t know the traditions, they don’t know the couple, they don’t have authority granted by any societal institutions. But they usually find a robe to wear. And they are quick to say, “by the power invested in me by the state of . . ., I pronounce.” That power invested in them comes only through the liberalization of the laws of the state that allow anyone to officiate at a wedding. It isn’t like they did anything to earn that “power.” And, quite frankly, it isn’t much power.
The church has something entirely different to offer. We have a connection with the traditions and past of our people. We have educated clergy who are willing to spend enough time with a couple to really get to know them and to personalize their service to the unique circumstances of their wedding. The church offers an on-going community of support to a couple and their families as they travel through the difficult times of their lives. Unlike the wedding venues and officiants, the church will be there for the couple when they face grief and loss.
In an increasingly secular world, the church has a unique and wonderful covenant and ceremony. It will likely be chosen by a small minority of couples, but those who do will appreciate the depth and beauty of a real church wedding and the connections it offers with both the past and the future.
After all, marriage is a sacred covenant.
There are a few other keepers of tradition in our society. One such place is the court system. It evolves and changes, but it remains rooted in the history of our people.
But there aren’t too many keepers of tradition in our society. Most public media, such as television, are terrible at keeping tradition. Watch a wedding on television, and you get a silly mishmash of old words that have been separated from their meaning. There is some sense that a formal occasion like a wedding needs to have some of the beautiful old words from the past, but there is no connection with the living and growing tradition. Often a television wedding will have words and symbols that you wouldn’t see in a contemporary church wedding, but those words and symbols are used out of context, without an understanding of the meanings behind the traditions.
Sometimes when a couple comes to me to help plan their wedding, they say that they want a “traditional” wedding. But they don’t know what that means. They are longing for a connection with the past and the heritage of our people, but they have not learned those traditions. Too often, the word “traditional” when used by couples in reference to weddings doesn’t mean traditional at all. It means like they have seen before and that means on television.
Television weddings are rarely even complete in terms of the liturgy. If you remove the advertisements from a television program, the program doesn’t last as long as a genuinely traditional wedding. So television deletes the reading of scripture, for example. Remove the sacred words that have been treasured by our people for millennia and you remove one of our links with the past. Television weddings have some sense that the couple must assent to vows, so they almost always have the words “I do.” Rarely do they display the tradition of the couple exchanging complete wedding vows by repeating them after the pastor. In the liturgy of our church the vows of intention, which are not the same as the wedding vows, are answered with the words, “I will,” not “I do.” That change was made a half a century ago when the words at the beginning of the vows were changed from “Do you take . . .” to “Will you have . . .” There have been many other changes in words in the liturgies of the church. Liturgy is not static. But the changes are forged in the context of a deep awareness of the history and a deep respect for the past.
Playing “pick and choose” with old words is hardly honoring the past.
There is a definite trend toward the secularization of weddings. Wedding “venues” away from churches are popular and market their services aggressively. They offer “complete” services, including providing officiants. The officiants rarely are educated and rarely possess any knowledge of the history and traditions of marriage. At their best they are well-meaning people who are trying to provide a service to couples. At their worst they are charlatans and hucksters who are simply trying to make a buck off of a couple at a vulnerable point in their lives whose parents are willing to spend a lot of money on a single day. The wedding industry is a multi-billion dollar industry and people aren’t spending much of that money on the services of churches. In the average church wedding the bride’s dress cost two to four times the cost of all of the services of the church, including honoraria for musicians, ministers and church wedding coordinators. People can spent up to 10 times the cost of church services on the photographer. And receptions are where they really unleash the wallet.
These secular officiants simply want to get a bit of all of that spending. And they are willing to do so by not consuming too much money or too much time. They can’t personalize their services because they don’t know the couple. In many cases they haven’t even met the couple more than a simple interview before the wedding. They don’t know the traditions, they don’t know the couple, they don’t have authority granted by any societal institutions. But they usually find a robe to wear. And they are quick to say, “by the power invested in me by the state of . . ., I pronounce.” That power invested in them comes only through the liberalization of the laws of the state that allow anyone to officiate at a wedding. It isn’t like they did anything to earn that “power.” And, quite frankly, it isn’t much power.
The church has something entirely different to offer. We have a connection with the traditions and past of our people. We have educated clergy who are willing to spend enough time with a couple to really get to know them and to personalize their service to the unique circumstances of their wedding. The church offers an on-going community of support to a couple and their families as they travel through the difficult times of their lives. Unlike the wedding venues and officiants, the church will be there for the couple when they face grief and loss.
In an increasingly secular world, the church has a unique and wonderful covenant and ceremony. It will likely be chosen by a small minority of couples, but those who do will appreciate the depth and beauty of a real church wedding and the connections it offers with both the past and the future.
After all, marriage is a sacred covenant.