Minister officiating at wedding cerermonies

[tcalbrecht]

I posted these questions on another forum where a discussion was being held on the meaning of "papist" in WCF 24:3, and church vs. civil weddings.

[In case you haven't read it, Overture 1 to the next PCA General Assembly is asking for a clarification on the meaning of "papist" in WCF 24.]

There was some interesting issues that were raised in this discussion, but I have a some fundamental questions about the authority of ministers officiating at wedding ceremonies.

Regarding the theological issues surrounding church vs. civil weddings, and why a presbytery would deny ruling elders the right to conduct such weddings, here are some of my questions:

- Is it true that all the relevant portions of BCO are not constitutionally binding, and are merely pious advice?

- What is the theological basis for ministers performing wedding ceremonies?

- Is there such a thing as a biblical wedding cerermony? I so, what are the necessary constituent parts?

- Is there any example in Scripture of a church officer performing a wedding ceremony?

- If we extend the "regulative principle" to all aspects of church authority, what positive commandment or good and necessary consequence would lead one to say that a minister has divine authority to officiate at wedding ceremonies?

- Isn't it possible to argue that this "authority" is merely a holdover from the Romanist sacerdotal view of marriage?

- If not, would it be permissible (required??) for a church session to discipline a member who has a civil magistrate officiate at their wedding ceremony?

- Is it improper for a (Christian) civil magistrate to invoke God's blessing on a marriage?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I won't attempt to answer all of your questions, but I think this excerpt from the Westminster Directory of Public Worship provides some helpful guidance:

http://www.covenanter.org/Westminster/directoryforpublicworship.htm#marriage

Also, I cited a source relevant to your questions in the thread on parental consent for marriage:

E.L. Hebden Taylor, The Reformational Understanding of Family and Marriage, pp. 8-9, 14:

Quote:

Luther denied that marriage was a sacrament and said that two conditions must be present for a sacrament: it must have been specifically instituted by Christ and must be distinctively Christian. Marriage does not qualify in either respect. Luther also taught that marriage is part of the natural order and hence it cannot be included in the sacramental system of the Church and that a religious service is not necessary for a valid marriage.

A great attempt was made by the Puritans to continue the work of the reformation of family and marriage begun by Luther and Calvin. Thus they tried to establish it upon a civil rather than religious basis by passing an Act of Parliament in 1644 which asserted that 'marriage to be no sacrament, nor peculiar to the church of God but common to mankind and of public interest to every commonwealth.' The Act added, 'notwithstanding, that it was expedient that marriage should be solemnized by a lawful minister of the Word.' A more radical Act in 1653 swept away this provision and made marriage purely a civil matter to be performed by the Justice of the Peace, the age of consent for man was established at sixteen years, and for a woman at fourteen.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I would also note that the Westminster Assembly advised that marriages not be "solemnized" on the Lord's Day.

I also do not see any reason why the regulative principle of worship should apply to a marriage ceremony, although certain elements of worship may be present.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I would also note that the Westminster Assembly advised that marriages not be "solemnized" on the Lord's Day.

That's interesting. The WLC enjoins us from "such worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful;" and "all needless works, words, and thoughts, about our worldly employments and recreations" on the Lord's Day.

What does this say about their view of wedding ceremonies? If it's a "worldly employment" why do we attach such religious value to it that we require a minister to officiate?

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I also do not see any reason why the regulative principle of worship should apply to a marriage ceremony, although certain elements of worship may be present.

The only sanctioned religious ceremony in the Bible is Christian worship. Christian worship is regulated by WCF XXI.

My comment about the regulative principle was more broadly aimed at the idea that the church may not claim authority over areas where God has not explicitly given it jurisdiction in His Word. E.g., the church may not use coersive force, but yet the minister of the word who performs a wedding ceremony does so as an agent of the state, and thus becomes an agent of the state's coersive actions with respect to the marriage. But a minister is purely an agent of the church (or should be). The minister's signature on the state-issued marriage license makes him a party to any future legal action dealing with that marriage.

Regarding the duties of the minister, all Christians may sing. All Christians may pray. All Christians may offer blessing. All Christians may witness vows and oaths and remind other Christians of their obligations when taking those vows.

What does a minister at a wedding do that any ordinary Christian cannot do, except for the fact that the minister is authorized by the state to perform those duties, while "normal folks" are not.

If a wedding ceremony is not a religious ceremony, then why should a minister of the word preside over the activity? Should the minister preach a sermon? Suppose we just call it a "charge" (like we give to officers when they are ordained).

I'm trying to get at the theological reasons to prefer/endorse such activity by a minister of the word.

I get the sneaking suspicion that what we have in protestant churches which claim sola scriptura is a hold over from Romanist sacerdodal system where marriage was viewed as a sacrament.

I guess what I'm looking for is a cogent theological argument to support our common Western practice.

 

[lionovjudah]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I would also note that the Westminster Assembly advised that marriages not be "solemnized" on the Lord's Day.

That's interesting. The WLC enjoins us from "such worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful;" and "all needless works, words, and thoughts, about our worldly employments and recreations" on the Lord's Day.

What does this say about their view of wedding ceremonies? If it's a "worldly employment" why do we attach such religious value to it that we require a minister to officiate?

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I also do not see any reason why the regulative principle of worship should apply to a marriage ceremony, although certain elements of worship may be present.

The only sanctioned religious ceremony in the Bible is Christian worship. Christian worship is regulated by WCF XXI.

My comment about the regulative principle was more broadly aimed at the idea that the church may not claim authority over areas where God has not explicitly given it jurisdiction in His Word. E.g., the church may not use coersive force, but yet the minister of the word who performs a wedding ceremony does so as an agent of the state, and thus becomes an agent of the state's coersive actions with respect to the marriage. But a minister is purely an agent of the church (or should be). The minister's signature on the state-issued marriage license makes him a party to any future legal action dealing with that marriage.

Regarding the duties of the minister, all Christians may sing. All Christians may pray. All Christians may offer blessing. All Christians may witness vows and oaths and remind other Christians of their obligations when taking those vows.

What does a minister at a wedding do that any ordinary Christian cannot do, except for the fact that the minister is authorized by the state to perform those duties, while "normal folks" are not.

If a wedding ceremony is not a religious ceremony, then why should a minister of the word preside over the activity? Should the minister preach a sermon? Suppose we just call it a "charge" (like we give to officers when they are ordained).

I'm trying to get at the theological reasons to prefer/endorse such activity by a minister of the word.

I get the sneaking suspicion that what we have in protestant churches which claim sola scriptura is a hold over from Romanist sacerdodal system where marriage was viewed as a sacrament.

I guess what I'm looking for is a cogent theological argument to support our common Western practice.

I doubt you will find one that is compelling without parroting the WLC or WCF. This does present an issue for further study. This is different than the polygyny/polygamy, adultery debate.

Joe

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Marriage ceremonies have both a civil and a religious aspect to them, as the Assembly notes:

ALTHOUGH marriage be no sacrament, nor peculiar to the church of God, but common to mankind, and of publick interest in every commonwealth; yet, because such as marry are to marry in the Lord, and have special need of instruction, direction, and exhortation, from the word of God, at their entering into such a new condition, and of the blessing of God upon them therein, we judge it expedient that marriage be solemnized by a lawful minister of the word, that he may accordingly counsel them, and pray for a blessing upon them.

To remove the role of minister entirely from all wedding services, I think would be just as unwarranted as the Roman view of marriage as a church sacrament.

But marriage is an institution for unbelievers as well as Christians. A justice of the peace (or a ship's captain) has the proper civil authority to approve a marriage.

Marriage is the building block of the family institution and as much falls within the overlapping spheres of church and state which both have a vested interest in families being established according to the principles of God's Word.

I note that Jesus' first miracle was at a wedding feast and I also note that he enabled the serving of good wine. The celebration of marriage in this way is blessed and approved by the Lord, but such celebration may not be appropriate on the Lord's Day. Hence, I can see why the Assembly discouraged weddings on that day.

 

[lionovjudah]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Marriage ceremonies have both a civil and a religious aspect to them, as the Assembly notes:

ALTHOUGH marriage be no sacrament, nor peculiar to the church of God, but common to mankind, and of publick interest in every commonwealth; yet, because such as marry are to marry in the Lord, and have special need of instruction, direction, and exhortation, from the word of God, at their entering into such a new condition, and of the blessing of God upon them therein, we judge it expedient that marriage be solemnized by a lawful minister of the word, that he may accordingly counsel them, and pray for a blessing upon them.

To remove the role of minister entirely from all wedding services, I think would be just as unwarranted as the Roman view of marriage as a church sacrament.

But marriage is an institution for unbelievers as well as Christians. A justice of the peace (or a ship's captain) has the proper civil authority to approve a marriage.

Marriage is the building block of the family institution and as much falls within the overlapping spheres of church and state which both have a vested interest in families being established according to the principles of God's Word.

I note that Jesus' first miracle was at a wedding feast and I also note that he enabled the serving of good wine. The celebration of marriage in this way is blessed and approved by the Lord, but such celebration may not be appropriate on the Lord's Day. Hence, I can see why the Assembly discouraged weddings on that day.

Excellent points Andrew. But I believe the question is where is it prescribed in scripture how the "ceremony" should be performed. Is there anything in the OT that explains this? Again, without using the Assembly, where can we find any examples of this? I am sure it is there, but is it all extra biblical?


Joe

 

[Scott]

Many American Puritans went with the idea that marriage should not be performed or presided over by a minister and believed that wedding rings were "badges of popery."

For a practical matter, civil marriage statutes cede the right to perform marriages to ministers, along with many others. So, there is a legal justification.

 

[lionovjudah]

Originally posted by Scott
Many American Puritans went with the idea that marriage should not be performed or presided over by a minister and believed that wedding rings were "badges of popery."

For a practical matter, civil marriage statutes cede the right to perform marriages to ministers, along with many others. So, there is a legal justification.

Add this to the other 500 quirks they fought over.....Thank God they are not the barometer to being the most levelheaded individuals..

The legal jurisdiction is nto what has my attention. There has to be a biblical example somwhere prescribing the officiating of the marriage...

 

[Scott]

"There has to be a biblical example somwhere prescribing the officiating of the marriage..."

I don't think so.

BTW, I don't agree with the American Puritans. I just posted that as a historical observation.

 

[lionovjudah]

Originally posted by Scott
"There has to be a biblical example somwhere prescribing the officiating of the marriage..."

I don't think so.

BTW, I don't agree with the American Puritans. I just posted that as a historical observation.

WHat about the Levitical Laws? I have tried some research but am empty...

Joe

 

[lionovjudah]

Here is a good article in regards to this that may be helpful.

One reader asks, "What are your views regarding the church ... marrying unconverted people? I think the whole thing makes a mockery of true religion." We think it makes a mockery not only of true religion but also of marriage!

There are several things that need to be remembered here. First, marriage is not a sacrament, but a civil ordinance. It does not, as such, belong to the church, but to the civil powers. There is, therefore, no need that a marriage be performed by a minister or in a church. A marriage performed by the magistrate in the local registrar's office is a legal marriage before God, all other things being equal.

That marriage is a civil ceremony is clear from the fact that it traces back to the time before the fall (Gen. 2:21-25), and to the various ordinances that God gave to all mankind prior to the fall. It does not have its origin in saving grace, but in creation. Thus, the marriages of unbelievers are real marriages in God's sight, and they are required to keep His ordinances regarding marriage, even though they marry without Him.

The alternative to this is really the view of Roman Catholicism that marriage belongs to the church and is a rite to be administered by the church, in other words, a sacrament. The only other alternative is that of anabaptism, which does not (historically) recognize the authority of the civil magistrate.

That ministers are legally entitled to marry people and that these marriages are performed in churches is the case only in order that the marriage of Christians may be distinguished from the marriage of unbelievers, and even that is possible only when the State gives ministers the legal right to marry men and women.

When marriages are performed in churches by ministers, there is the opportunity to exhort from Scripture both those who are present and those who are marrying, to point out that Christian marriage is a picture of the relationship between Christ and His church (Eph. 5:22-33), to give God's people opportunity to witness this beautiful picture of the that great and blessed relationship, and to bless the marriage in the Name of God and Christ. That is good, and the only reason for ministers or churches to be involved in this work.

Generally speaking, believers should not wish to be married by ungodly civil authorities, who neither recognize the sanctity of marriage, nor care that it is an ordinance of God, and who are, at best, only interested in carrying out their civic responsibilities. It is right and good that they be married, if possible, by and among those who love and cherish marriage, who will assist them in the responsibilities of married life, and who will remind them of the seriousness of marriage and of the blessings of Christian marriage.

There is, then, no good reason for churches to marry unconverted people. Their marriages are not pictures of Christ and His church. They are not interested in hearing the Word of God concerning marriage, nor are their marriages blessed by God. Indeed, when the churches do this they "make a mockery of true religion" in that by their presence and assistance they say that there is a blessing for those who do not marry "in the Lord."

Ministers and churches should be involved in marrying people only when there is good reason to do so, that is, to bless and prosper Christian marriage. They have nothing to do with the world's marrying and giving in marriage. There too, the Word of God applies, "let the dead bury their dead" (Matt. 8:22). Rev. Ron Hanko

 

[Scott]

"WHat about the Levitical Laws? I have tried some research but am empty..."

There is nothing in Leviticus about procedures for marrying (who may preside over the wedding).

 

[AdamM]

If the marriage ceremony is not a sacramental, nor a proper component of the worship service and there is no specific biblical mandate perscribing the content and who should perform the ceremony, then it would appear to me to be in the category of things indifferent.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

In America at least, and i'm sure in other countries, minsters are not functioning necessarily as ministers when they officate a wedding. They are functioning as a civil magistrate. Notice you marriage license is a state document not a church document.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by puritansailor
In America at least, and i'm sure in other countries, minsters are not functioning necessarily as ministers when they officate a wedding. They are functioning as a civil magistrate. Notice you marriage license is a state document not a church document.

If this is true, and I'm sure the state views it as being true, is this a proper role for a minister of the word?

In PA the law reads:

§ 1503. Persons qualified to solemnize marriages.

(a) General rule.--The following are authorized to solemnize marriages between persons that produce a marriage license issued under this part:

1. A justice, judge or district justice of this Commonwealth.
2. A former or retired justice, judge or district justice of this Commonwealth who is serving as a senior judge or senior district justice as provided or prescribed by law.
3. An active or senior judge or full-time magistrate of the District Courts of the United States for the Eastern, Middle or Western District of Pennsylvania.
4. An active or senior judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit who is a resident of this Commonwealth.
5. A mayor of any city or borough of this Commonwealth.
6. A minister, priest or rabbi of any regularly established church or congregation.

(b) Religious organizations.--Every religious society, religious institution or religious organization in this Commonwealth may join persons together in marriage when at least one of the persons is a member of the society, institution or organization, according to the rules and customs of the society, institution or organization.

(c) Marriage license needed to officiate.--No person or religious organization qualified to perform marriages shall officiate at a marriage ceremony without the parties having obtained a marriage license issued under this part.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht
If this is true, and I'm sure the state views it as being true, is this a proper role for a minister of the word?

Many Puritans in fact did not have ministers officiating marriages but the civil magistrate, because the Scriptures do not command such a function for a minister.