Jump to content
IGNORED

Marriage


JustinM

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  764
  • Topics Per Day:  0.18
  • Content Count:  7,626
  • Content Per Day:  1.82
  • Reputation:   1,559
  • Days Won:  44
  • Joined:  10/03/2012
  • Status:  Offline

Personally, I don't see any reason why a wedding has to be before, after, or during a Sunday Service.

I believe that weddings are best done on Fridays or Saturdays. This allows for family members coming from out of town time to travel. It also doesn't disrupt everyday worship services on Sundays in most churches.

My 2 cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  144
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  4,512
  • Content Per Day:  0.69
  • Reputation:   625
  • Days Won:  10
  • Joined:  04/11/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/07/1979

The reason I suggested wedding ceremonies be performed before, during, or after Sunday service was to highlight the fact that weddings have become more secular in the ceremonies, yet the setting is usually a religious one and to also have the Church present, instead of being excluded like it is now.

 

Christian Weddings don't have to be so elaborate.  In fact, I believe YHVH would be apalled at how much time and money is spent on something that sacred.  He would probably see it as vanity.  What is wrong with just having the church body present and in witness of the ceremony, the pastor administering it, and the betrothed speaking their sacred vows?  Why does it have to be anything more than that? 

 

It can be the most elaborate and expensive wedding ever done, yet if the betrothed aren't committed to a lifetime together, then what does it matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,823
  • Topics Per Day:  0.76
  • Content Count:  45,870
  • Content Per Day:  5.97
  • Reputation:   1,897
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

quote nebula:  "Tell me Justin, when should the church be decorated for the ceremony?"

 

Hi, when my wife and I were married, it was in a Lutheran church and was decorated for the season of Epiphany.  It was absolutely beautiful and didn't require any other decorations, except for a table with a "unity" sand set-up.  I know that could be the exception, not the rule in my case, but I know churches can be beautiful without too much decoration in them.

 

As marriages are conducted now, in many cases we don't really see a difference between a Christian marriage ceremony and a secular one.

 

quote nebula:  "How would there be a reception if the ceremony is before church?"

 

Sometimes weddings are planned where the reception takes place hours after the ceremony, I don't see how that would be a problem here.  Churches have pot-lucks or other meals together, so it wouldn't be too much trouble to incorporate a wedding reception into that, if the newly wedded couple wants their reception to be in the church.

 

Anything can be done as long as there's enough time to plan for it.

 

The parents and the betrothed are spending 10's of thousands of dollars on their weddings, why is it necessary for Christians to do that?  I know weddings are a big day for the families, but is it really necessary to be a 5 figure day?

 

I need to apologize, Justin.  My response was reactionary, and not well-written to convey my heart. After having been married near seven months ago, the concept of having to plan out my ceremony by your parameters made me want to choke. There's a story behind that, and I do not believe it is necessary to relay here.

 

But the initial point was to consider a lot of impracticalities with forcing women to plan "her day" around a church's Sunday service, and this is just not something many men can appreciate. Although I do agree way too much money has to be spent on a ceremony, there's just something very special for women to have a beautiful dress, flowers to her liking, a professional photographer, and the whole works. I wish I knew better how to communicate this in a way that would enable you to see the difficulty forcing women to arrange a ceremony before, during, or after a Sunday service. Yes, your wife was fine with this. But not many women would.

 

My main point, however, was that a marriage ceremony does not make or break a marriage. Preparing a couple beforehand for "oneness" and providing support, guidance, and counseling afterward are the best structures a church can provide to maintain marriages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,823
  • Topics Per Day:  0.76
  • Content Count:  45,870
  • Content Per Day:  5.97
  • Reputation:   1,897
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

The reason I suggested wedding ceremonies be performed before, during, or after Sunday service was to highlight the fact that weddings have become more secular in the ceremonies, yet the setting is usually a religious one and to also have the Church present, instead of being excluded like it is now.

 

Christian Weddings don't have to be so elaborate.  In fact, I believe YHVH would be apalled at how much time and money is spent on something that sacred.  He would probably see it as vanity.  What is wrong with just having the church body present and in witness of the ceremony, the pastor administering it, and the betrothed speaking their sacred vows?  Why does it have to be anything more than that? 

 

It can be the most elaborate and expensive wedding ever done, yet if the betrothed aren't committed to a lifetime together, then what does it matter?

 

And as I said, spoken like a man! :P

 

 

Seriously, though, it was actually my husband who encouraged me to go more elaborate. I was trying to plan frugally and wear a fancy summer dress. But my then-fiance wanted to wear a tux to have a physical representation of making this day special and purposeful and meaningful (there's a story behind that, but it's personal). So, I bit the bullet and purchased a real wedding dress. In the end, it was well worth it!

 

We put a lot of meaning into our service, broke the norm in some ways, followed the norm in others, but the point was that we did all things with the intent purpose of representing our love and our devotion to each other. We would not have been able to do these things with a more stoic church-service-oriented ceremony.

 

 

So while it may be better for some, like you did, to downplay the ceremony, for some keeping the special ceremony may be more of a blessings in the end. It all depends on how you do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  144
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  4,512
  • Content Per Day:  0.69
  • Reputation:   625
  • Days Won:  10
  • Joined:  04/11/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/07/1979

Still, I'm not trying to force anything on anyone.  I'm just challenging people to reconsider what is important about a Christian wedding, the wedding, or the actual marriage?  My wife and I had a budget wedding, but it was still over $10k, the food at the reception was half that.

 

I also want to stress, that this conversation isn't about the cost of a wedding.  Christian marriages are ending in divorce as often as secular marriages are.  That is a major problem.  I feel the church isn't as involved our lives as it used to be.  That's partly our fault and partly the church's fault.  My idea is to give the church a more important role in our relationships.  We need it to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Good morning everyone.  One of my questions for today is, why do churches require a marriage certificate before marrying two people?  Why won't churches marry people without an "offical" marriage certificate? 

 

Hi JustinM,  First I personally believe that the churches should require a marriage certificate before marrying two people.  It is the law of the land that a marriage certificate is required for two people to get married.  So in that regards I think the churches comply.  Churches can go the route of going ahead and marrying two people who wish to marry without having a marriage certificate but there are problems with doing it.  Some of the problems would be a couple could be accountable to their local body of believers but not accountable when it comes to the laws of the land.  There would be many who wouldn't take proper and rightful responsibility for their families no legal responsibility without a legal document.  Without a legal document a spouse or parent would have difficulty should legal action be required and necessary for child support or what not.  It is for this reason a church should require a marriage license.  The church could hold all married couples accountable in the local body.  But what if that couple decides not to be apart of that local body and leave the church.  At least a marriage certificate would hold the couple accountable according to the laws of the land.  I think people fail to see that there is a natural side to life as well as the spiritual side of things.    Although it is a good and worthy topic for discussion.  blessings 

 

The laws of the land don't require two people be married to live together and call it a marriage.  The laws only require a license if you desire state recognition.  My problem of late with state recognition is I don't agree with many of the things the things the state is doing with marriage.  Allowing homosexual marriage was the last straw for me.  I don't think state recognition of marriage has done much to deter divorce.  I personally feel like official church recognition of the marriage would be more powerful, especially if they refuse to dissolve a marriage as easily as a judge will. 

 

Either way, there must be a genuine lifetime commitment, and there should be some kind of certificate given by the church. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  55
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  4,568
  • Content Per Day:  0.69
  • Reputation:   770
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/18/2006
  • Status:  Offline

 

 

Good morning everyone.  One of my questions for today is, why do churches require a marriage certificate before marrying two people?  Why won't churches marry people without an "offical" marriage certificate? 

 

Hi JustinM,  First I personally believe that the churches should require a marriage certificate before marrying two people.  It is the law of the land that a marriage certificate is required for two people to get married.  So in that regards I think the churches comply.  Churches can go the route of going ahead and marrying two people who wish to marry without having a marriage certificate but there are problems with doing it.  Some of the problems would be a couple could be accountable to their local body of believers but not accountable when it comes to the laws of the land.  There would be many who wouldn't take proper and rightful responsibility for their families no legal responsibility without a legal document.  Without a legal document a spouse or parent would have difficulty should legal action be required and necessary for child support or what not.  It is for this reason a church should require a marriage license.  The church could hold all married couples accountable in the local body.  But what if that couple decides not to be apart of that local body and leave the church.  At least a marriage certificate would hold the couple accountable according to the laws of the land.  I think people fail to see that there is a natural side to life as well as the spiritual side of things.    Although it is a good and worthy topic for discussion.  blessings 

 

The laws of the land don't require two people be married to live together and call it a marriage.  The laws only require a license if you desire state recognition.  My problem of late with state recognition is I don't agree with many of the things the things the state is doing with marriage.  Allowing homosexual marriage was the last straw for me.  I don't think state recognition of marriage has done much to deter divorce.  I personally feel like official church recognition of the marriage would be more powerful, especially if they refuse to dissolve a marriage as easily as a judge will. 

 

Either way, there must be a genuine lifetime commitment, and there should be some kind of certificate given by the church. 

 

 

I don't believe I said that the laws of the land required couples who are living together to get a marriage liscense.  In fact people who are living together and are sexually active and having babies and the what not outside of marriage.  Those who are living outside of marriage in fornication many are unaccountable for their actions legally.   I'm just saying that some kind of legal proof of a marriage should be given as a legal document as proof of a legitimate marriage.  That legal document can come from the church or whoever as long as it is legal binding document.  There are just too many illigitimate children being born out of wedlock while people are shacking up together with no commitment.  Then the government ends up picking up the tab and we both know where they get the money from to pay the tab.  There are people shaking up and many don't even know who the father of their children are.  Hence no legal responsibility or accountability.  I don't agree with all of the things the states are doing in allowing same sex marriage either it is destestable.  Same sex unions should never be recognized as a marriage which takes place between one man and one woman.  Because in my personal view and belief that it is not a marriage but a perversion.     As far as the state recongnitions of marriage goes I don't believe it was ever meant to deter divorce from happening in the first place but to make the marriage legally binding.  That is why many people live together outside of marriage to start with they want no commitment or to be bound legally.   I do agree the church for the most part would be a deterent against divorce and an advocate for reconciliation.  I just think there ought to be some kind of legal document that makes a marriage legal and binding in the land because of the lawless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,823
  • Topics Per Day:  0.76
  • Content Count:  45,870
  • Content Per Day:  5.97
  • Reputation:   1,897
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

..  Christian marriages are ending in divorce as often as secular marriages are.  That is a major problem.  I feel the church isn't as involved our lives as it used to be.  That's partly our fault and partly the church's fault.  My idea is to give the church a more important role in our relationships.  We need it to.

 

On this we can agree!

 

Too many churches are run as businesses rather than as families. So we have a loss of connection that way.

 

Likewise,churches tend to not have marriage counseling and support networks.

 

The list can go on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Good morning everyone.  One of my questions for today is, why do churches require a marriage certificate before marrying two people?  Why won't churches marry people without an "offical" marriage certificate? 

 

Hi JustinM,  First I personally believe that the churches should require a marriage certificate before marrying two people.  It is the law of the land that a marriage certificate is required for two people to get married.  So in that regards I think the churches comply.  Churches can go the route of going ahead and marrying two people who wish to marry without having a marriage certificate but there are problems with doing it.  Some of the problems would be a couple could be accountable to their local body of believers but not accountable when it comes to the laws of the land.  There would be many who wouldn't take proper and rightful responsibility for their families no legal responsibility without a legal document.  Without a legal document a spouse or parent would have difficulty should legal action be required and necessary for child support or what not.  It is for this reason a church should require a marriage license.  The church could hold all married couples accountable in the local body.  But what if that couple decides not to be apart of that local body and leave the church.  At least a marriage certificate would hold the couple accountable according to the laws of the land.  I think people fail to see that there is a natural side to life as well as the spiritual side of things.    Although it is a good and worthy topic for discussion.  blessings 

 

The laws of the land don't require two people be married to live together and call it a marriage.  The laws only require a license if you desire state recognition.  My problem of late with state recognition is I don't agree with many of the things the things the state is doing with marriage.  Allowing homosexual marriage was the last straw for me.  I don't think state recognition of marriage has done much to deter divorce.  I personally feel like official church recognition of the marriage would be more powerful, especially if they refuse to dissolve a marriage as easily as a judge will. 

 

Either way, there must be a genuine lifetime commitment, and there should be some kind of certificate given by the church. 

 

 

I don't believe I said that the laws of the land required couples who are living together to get a marriage liscense.  In fact people who are living together and are sexually active and having babies and the what not outside of marriage.  Those who are living outside of marriage in fornication many are unaccountable for their actions legally.   I'm just saying that some kind of legal proof of a marriage should be given as a legal document as proof of a legitimate marriage.  That legal document can come from the church or whoever as long as it is legal binding document.  There are just too many illigitimate children being born out of wedlock while people are shacking up together with no commitment.  Then the government ends up picking up the tab and we both know where they get the money from to pay the tab.  There are people shaking up and many don't even know who the father of their children are.  Hence no legal responsibility or accountability.  I don't agree with all of the things the states are doing in allowing same sex marriage either it is destestable.  Same sex unions should never be recognized as a marriage which takes place between one man and one woman.  Because in my personal view and belief that it is not a marriage but a perversion.     As far as the state recongnitions of marriage goes I don't believe it was ever meant to deter divorce from happening in the first place but to make the marriage legally binding.  That is why many people live together outside of marriage to start with they want no commitment or to be bound legally.   I do agree the church for the most part would be a deterent against divorce and an advocate for reconciliation.  I just think there ought to be some kind of legal document that makes a marriage legal and binding in the land because of the lawless.

 

I guess I am not sure what you mean when you say "legally binding?"  If you are able to get a divorce, marriage isn't binding to begin with.  If you mean legally recognized, I get your point.  If we could make reforms to the current marriage laws, I would agree with you.  Until the gay marriage issue came up, I was 100 percent in agreement with you.  Then I started re-thinking the whole matter.  I also tried to look at what might be contributing to the high divorce rate, and I think things like alimony, especially in no fault states, and large child support payments are making divorce more easy.  I would like to see a divorce very difficult to obtain.  It needs to be legal because there are extreme cases where there is abuse or infidelity, and nobody should have to tolerate those conditions, but divorce has become too easy.  Even the churches are too accepting of it, even when it occurs many times over and for unbiblical reasons. 

 

Perhaps there needs to be some middle ground here, because the main concern should be for the children.  They are sadly the ones that usually get the least consideration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,823
  • Topics Per Day:  0.76
  • Content Count:  45,870
  • Content Per Day:  5.97
  • Reputation:   1,897
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

Mawage!

 

Mawage is what bwings us togethaw today.

 

That bwessed awangement, that dweam within a dweam, . . . .

 

 

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist!

 

Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...