Church Weddings Exchange
If you have not read, "Church Weddings," it is recommended that you read the article before considering the following exchange on church weddings (click on "Church Weddings" to read). The issue of church weddings is a seldom discussed subject. However, it is a subject about which there are many different views, even in the church of Christ (the article addresses the paramount issues). The following exchange took place on an Internet discussion list made up of many preachers. I asked for the most capable on the list to discuss the matter of church weddings and one of the more capable men agreed to engage in the amicable exchange. I shall simply refer to him as "Mike."
Don Martin to the list:
It was many years ago that I debated a preacher who held the position
that the work they were doing was scriptural. They had a full "family life"
center that included an inside recreational center (pool tables, etc.) and outside play
ground (basket ball courts, etc.). On Friday nights, they provided cartoons and secular
movies for all children who would attend. The church treasury and building were used in
these works. My question to the preacher (Church of Christ) was, "where do you find
the authority for such works being sponsored by the church? His repeated reply was,
"the same verse that authorizes weddings in the church building permits our family
life center."
There is obviously a big difference as far as the nature of their family life center
activities and the average wedding in the church building (certainly marriage is a more
solemn occasion that pool, etc.). I continued to stress to him that such activities as
were involved in their family life center (I do not hear much about such today) were the
responsibility of the home, not the local church. To which he would reply, "weddings
are also a function of the home, not the church."
When I saw that he was determined to persist in this argumentation, I made the point that
a church that allows weddings to be conducted in their building is not conducting a
wedding as such, but is using their building for the preaching of the gospel. He countered
by saying, "we are not using our building primarily for cartoons, but to allow us the
opportunity to preach the gospel to those who come. We use the family life center to get
the audience and then we teach them, just as churches do who have weddings in their
buildings. The cartoons, etc., are incidental," he proceeded to explain, "just
as your weddings are incidental." The audience and I both knew that the preacher was
making a valid point.
The simple question is, why are people invited to the church building? Bake sales,
entertainment, boy scout meetings, political rallies, secular education, etc., are not the
work of the local church (I Tim. 3: 15). Basket ball counts, pool tables, secular movies
and cartoons have no business becoming part of the work in which the church engages. All
such constitute the social gospel. There is obviously a difference between the work of the
church (collectivity) and the work of the home, government, school, etc. (I am sorry that
some cannot see this difference). The treasury of the local church is only to be
used for the work God has assigned to the local church (I Cor. 16: 1, 2, I Tim. 3: 15).
Attempting to slid matters in as incidental to the real work is not acceptable. Weddings
are part of the responsibility of the home, not the local church. (See next post.)
Cordially,
Don Martin
Don Martin to the list:
"I want my daughter to have a church wedding," I have heard
many times. What is a church wedding, I have asked?
Many members have a catholic concept of marriage, I am afraid. "I just do not believe
I am really married unless it is a church wedding," I have been told. Do people
simply mean by "church wedding" a wedding that was conducted in a church
building? I believe it goes deeper than that. Some how there is the belief that a wedding
in the church building is sanctioned of God and the church, weddings outside the church
building are secular. I knew one non-institutional church that definitely believed
weddings in the their building was part of their local work. I asked them about
divorcement. "Divorcement should also take place in the building and be considered
part of the work of the local church," was the reply. At least they were consistent!
Brethren, may I humbly say that I have heard all the arguments, both pro and con. When I
first started doing local work, I justified weddings in the building by saying they
offered an opportunity to preach to people. Invitations were printed and sent out by the
family inviting people, "come to the wedding of our daughter to be held at the church
of Christ building, meeting at.....at 2: 00 P. M......" People would come to the
wedding and incidental to the wedding, the preacher attempts to work in a few scriptural
truths. The point remains, though, that the gathering is for the wedding. Have you ever
heard anyone say, "I am going to the building at 2: 00 P. M. to hear the gospel
preached"?
I know there is tremendous prejudice associated with the weddings in the church building
issue. "Marriage is ordained of God" keeps many from seeing the truth. So are
governments but such political matters are not the work of the church (Rom. 13: 1 ff.).
After saying all that I have, let me attempt to inject this: While I do not believe
weddings are part of the work of the local church and therefore they should not be
conducted in the church building, I do believe there is a marked difference between the
typical wedding held in the building and family life centers, etc. However, I think many
of the gross secular activities that are said to be justified as long as the gospel is
preached to those attending has, to some degree, been an evolution of the thinking,
"weddings are justified as long as we preach the gospel."
I do not conduct weddings in the church building and I preach why churches should not do
this. Again, the simple truth is, what is the purpose of the gathering in the building.
The church building is purchased and maintained out of the lord's treasury and is set
aside for spiritual use (in this sense, the church building is holy). It is then a
desecration of the building to use it for matters not part of the work God has assigned to
the local church.
Cordially,
Don Martin
Don Martin to the list:
As I expected, a number on this list believe weddings being conducted in
the church building constitute a scripturally acceptable practice and is consistent with
the conservative position of only using the building to do the work God has assigned to
it.
May I ask you this simple question: What is the purpose of the gathering and why has the
audience assembled when a wedding is held in a church building?
Please do not hesitate to answer. I will attempt to treat you cordially in my reply. I do
remind all, though, that I receive this list in digest form and that this is my third post
for today. Thank you in advance for your participation. In the event of multiple replies,
I shall select the response that I believe is best suited for the exchange.
Cordially,
Don Martin
Mike to Don Martin:
Don wrote:
"Don Martin to the list:
As I expected, a number on this list believe weddings being conducted in
the church building constitute a scripturally acceptable practice and is consistent with
the conservative position of only using the building to do the work God has assigned to
it. May I ask you this simple question: What is the purpose of the gathering and why has
the audience assembled when a wedding is held in a church building?"
Mike to Don: May I ask, how do you know when visitors attend a regular service just
why they have come? It may be out of curiosity. It may be to get a friend off of their
back. It may be they were brought by a parent against their actual desire or any number of
reasons. I know why I perform marriages anywhere, including in the meeting house belonging
to the Lord's people, the church. It is to impress upon the minds of all present to
permanency of marriage and what the Bible teaches about marriage and the home. We use
congregational singing and do not light up candles, do not have choirs or solo
singers. Nor do we decorate the building. We do not use secular music only the singing of
Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual songs. For all practical purposes it is a spiritual services
doing only things the church is authorized and commanded to engage in, teaching,
preaching, singing, and praying. Some who attend may be disappointed but then, we can't
control what they expect. We can control what we do and why. P.S. We ask that they do not
throw rice. Ask me why and I will tell you privately my two reasons.
Sincerely,
Mike
Don Martin to Mike and the list:
Mike, I am both pleased and disappointed that you have taken issue with
my post regarding weddings being a function of the home and not the church. I am pleased
because I respect you and know that your conduct will be exemplary. I am disappointed
because I take no pleasure in differing with you on this or any other biblical subject.
Mike wrote in defense of weddings in the church building as follows:
"Are you questioning the fact
that the church is to preach the gospel, edify the membership, and engage in spiritual
worship activities enlisting congregational singing? The other things done in Weddings or
Funerals that I preach are incidentals to our purposes for being involved."
Don answers:
Mike, knowing you, I am sure you would not have any part in a totally "secular"
wedding in a church building. I can both appreciate this and, at the same time, not
appreciate the matter. In the area of lacking appreciation, I think you being very careful
and controlling in the matter of weddings in the building will hinder you from seeing the
still remaining primary purpose of the wedding. This is why I attempt to have patience
with brethren who differ with me regarding weddings in the building. As you and some
others restrict and control these weddings, they do not have all the clear vestiges of
many unauthorized activities in the church building, such as the cartoons, pool tables,
etc., that I mentioned in an earlier post.
Mike, your argument is precisely the same as mine was many years ago when I conducted
weddings in the building (a total of three). "I am at the building preaching the
gospel," was what I told myself. "Preaching to the lost and edifying the saints
is the work of the church," I reinforced my doubts by thus reasoning, just as you do
(I Tim. 3: 15, Eph. 4: 16). However, I still had some questions that disturbed me. I asked
older preachers as to how they justified weddings in the building. I received three
different answers: (1). "I do not have to justify them, they seldom take place and do
not become a permanent work of the local church," (2) "Don, do not question
them, the brethren will want church weddings and you will be marked as a trouble maker if
you continue your questionings," (3) "weddings are justified under preaching the
gospel."
Mike, you and I elected to embrace the third and only argument that at least ostensibly
offers scriptural authority for weddings in the building. In my next post, I want to
succinctly address the matter of incidentals.
Cordially,
Don Martin
Mike to Don Martin and the list. (This is the first of 3 responses to your, Don Martin's three post, on the subject under consideration. See Don's remarks followed by mine please.)
Don Martin to the list: #1 "Weddings & Funerals" in the
meeting-house
It was many years ago that I debated a preacher who held the position that the work they
were doing was scriptural. They had a full "family life" center that included an
inside recreational center (pool tables, etc.) and outside play ground (basket ball
courts, etc.). On Friday nights, they provided cartoons and secular movies for all
children who would attend. The church treasury and building were used in these works. My
question to the preacher (Church of Christ) was, "where do you find the authority for
such works being sponsored by the church? His repeated reply was, "the same verse
that authorizes weddings in the church building permits our family life center."
There is obviously a big difference as far as the nature of their family life center
activities and the average wedding in the church building (certainly marriage is a more
solemn occasion that pool, etc.). I continued to stress to him that such activities as
were involved in their family life center (I do not hear much about such today) were the
responsibility of the home, not the local church. To which he would reply, "weddings
are also a function of the home, not the church."
When I saw that he was determined to persist in this argumentation, I made the point that
a church that allows weddings to be conducted in their building is not conducting a
wedding as such, but is using their building for the preaching of the gospel. He countered
by saying, "we are not using our building primarily for cartoons, but to allow us the
opportunity to preach the gospel to those who come. We use the family life center to get
the audience and then we teach them, just as churches do who have weddings in their
buildings. The cartoons, etc., are incidental, he proceeded to explain, "just as your
weddings are incidental." The audience and I both knew that the preacher was making a
valid point.
Mike comments: Don, you were doing pretty well until in your zeal you allowed a
liberal preachers unjustified so called answer as a valid argument. It is not! They have
created an activity calling it a work of the church when it clearly isn't. There is no
right way to engage in a sinful practice (1 John 3:4; Colossians 3:17). If you think this
liberal preacher's "argument" to be valid and parallel to what I have said in
defense of Weddings & Funerals of the types that I participate in, you are mistaken.
Don Continues: The simple question is, why are people invited to the church
building? Bake sales, entertainment, boy scout meetings, political rallies, secular
education, etc., are not the work of the local church (I Tim. 3: 15). Basket ball counts,
pool tables, secular movies and cartoons have no business becoming part of the work in
which the church engages. All such constitute the social gospel. There is obviously a
difference between the work of the church (collectivity) and the work of the home,
government, school, etc. (I am sorry that some cannot see this difference). The treasury
of the local church is only to be used for the work God has assigned to the local church
(I Cor. 16: 1, 2, I Tim. 3: 15). Attempting to slid matters in as incidental to the real
work is not acceptable. Weddings are part of the responsibility of the home, not the local
church.
Mike's comments: Don, I am as opposed to the "Social Gospel" as you are
and it comes with poor grace on your part to equate the kinds of Weddings and Funerals
that I agree to participate, in with those unauthorized activities when you know that no
conservative Christian or gospel preacher is in favor of involving the local church in the
"Social Gospel" in any of its forms. You are using the liberals so called
answers for justification with my reasoned and scriptural actions that are a part of
Weddings and Funerals in which I participate. This is unjustifiable on your part. You are
setting up "straw men" that I disavow and trying to parallel my position with
that of the liberals and again I say, "it comes with poor grace."
Brotherly,
Mike
Mike to Don Martin and the list. (Here's number two (2) with Don's arguments and mine identified.)
#2 Don Martin to the list:
"I want my daughter to have a church wedding," I have heard many times. What is
a church wedding, I have asked? Many members have a catholic concept of marriage, I am
afraid. "I just do not believe I am really married unless it is a church
wedding," I have been told. Do people simply mean by "church wedding" a
wedding that was conducted in a church building? I believe it goes deeper than that. Some
how there is the belief that a wedding in the church building is sanctioned of God and the
church, weddings outside the church building are secular. I knew one non-institutional
church that definitely believed weddings in the their building was part of their local
work. I asked them about divorcement. "Divorcement should also take place in the
building and be considered part of the work of the local church," was the reply. At
least they were consistent!
Mike's Comments on the above: Don, I do not hold to any of the views of the
"liberal brethren" of whom you wrote above. To try and equate my position with
this extremely liberal view on a so called, "church wedding" or "church
divorce" (both of which are misnomers ) with what I agree to participate in, is
ludicrous to the extreme! Again let me say it comes with poor grace on your part.
Don continues: Brethren, may I humbly say that I have heard all the arguments, both
pro and con. When I first started doing local work, I justified weddings in the building
by saying they offered an opportunity to preach to people. Invitations were printed and
sent out by the family inviting people, "come to the wedding of our daughter to be
held at the church of Christ building, meeting at.....at 2: 00 P. M......" People
would come to the wedding and incidental to the wedding, the preacher attempts to work in
a few scriptural truths. The point remains, though, that the gathering is for the wedding.
Have you ever heard anyone say, "I am going to the building at 2: 00 P. M. to hear
the gospel preached"?
Mike's comments on the above: Don, again you have missed the boat completely. You
are trying to determine the scripturalness of what we agree to participate in as we preach
Weddings & Funerals with what the people attending have as their motive for attending.
The two aren't the same no doubt. Nor is it kind of you to claim that I "attempt to
work in a few scriptural truths." First of all, I have already told you the kind of
Weddings and Funerals we agree to participate in and our purpose is totally Scriptural and
does not lean toward any social agenda at all! We have congregational singing. I preach a
full fledged gospel sermon and we have prayer. Anything else is purely incidental. We do
nothing the church isn't authorized to engage in at Weddings and Funerals in which I agree
to participate.
Don Continues: I know there is tremendous prejudice associated with the weddings in
the church building issue. "Marriage is ordained of God" keeps many from seeing
the truth. So are governments but such political matters are not the work of the church
(Rom. 13: 1 ff.). After saying all that I have, let me attempt to inject this: While I do
not believe weddings are part of the work of the local church and therefore they should
not be conducted in the church building, I do believe there is a marked difference between
the typical wedding held in the building and family life centers, etc. However, I think
many of the gross secular activities that are said to be justified as long as the gospel
is preached to those attending has, to some degree, been an evolution of the thinking,
"weddings are justified as long as we preach the gospel."
Mike's comments: Don, again you are using the liberal's argument in an attempt
evidently to prejudice your readers against my position as if mine and theirs are parallel
which they are not! Earlier you threw in the statement "attempt to throw in a few
scriptural truths" which I have already addressed above. I do not believe "many
of the gross activities that are said to be justified as long as the gospel is
preached..." I believe there must be authority for every act in which the local
church engages (Colossians 3:17). I have repeatedly pointed out that the church does
nothing that is social, recreational or political in Weddings in which I participate. Not
unless you charge that being authorized by the state to perform a Wedding and pronounce
the couple as husband and wife is what you would call political! I see that as another of
the incidentals having nothing to do with this issue.
Don Continues: I do not conduct weddings in the church building and I preach why
churches should not do this. Again, the simple truth is, what is the purpose of the
gathering in the building. The church building is purchased and maintained out of the
lord's treasury and is set aside for spiritual use (in this sense, the church building is
holy). It is then a desecration of the building to use it for matters not part of the work
God has assigned to the local church.
Mike to Don Martin and the list. (This is #3
and the final in this particular series.)
#3) Don Martin to the list:
As I expected, a number on this list believe weddings being conducted in the church
building constitute a scripturally acceptable practice and is consistent with the
conservative position of only using the building to do the work God has assigned to it.
May I ask you this simple question: What is the purpose of the gathering and why has the
audience assembled when a wedding is held in a church building?
Please do not hesitate to answer. I will attempt to treat you cordially in my reply. I do
remind all, though, that I receive this list in digest form and that this is my third post
for today. Thank you in advance for your participation. In the event of multiple replies,
I shall select the response that I believe is best suited for the exchange. dm
Mike's comments: Don, may I ask, how do you know when visitors attend a regular
service just why they have come? It may be out of curiosity. It may be to get a friend off
of their back. It may be they were brought by a parent against their actual desire or any
number of reasons. I know why I perform marriages anywhere, including in the meeting house
belonging to the Lord's people, the church. It is to impress upon the minds of all present
to permanency of marriage and what the Bible teaches about marriage and the home. We use
congregational singing and do not light up candles, do not have choirs or solo singers.
Nor do we decorate the building. We do not use secular music only the singing of Psalms,
Hymns and Spiritual songs. For all practical purposes it is a spiritual services doing
only things the church is authorized and commanded to engage in, teaching, preaching,
singing, and praying. Some who attend may be disappointed but then, we can't control what
they expect. We can control what we do and why.
Sincerely,
Mike
Don Martin to Mike and the list:
Mike, I am sorry that I apparently have not made a couple matters so
plain that they cannot be misunderstand (I have repeatedly stated them in my posts).
Matters such as: I am not accusing you of advocating and practicing the social gospel per
say; I do believe that you would not partake in a wedding in a church building unless it
were highly structured; and I have repeatedly stated that I believe there is a manifest
degree difference between the typical church supported family life center and weddings in
the building. I do respect you and I certainly do not class you along with "liberal
preachers." However, I do believe that even with the structured weddings in the
church building, there remains an area of inconsistency that makes us vulnerable to the
accusations of the social gospel advocates. The area of vulnerability is: weddings are not
the work of the local church, even though they differ in nature from the frivolous fun and
frolic that characterizes the family life centers.
Mike, you continue to say that the primary purpose of the wedding in the building is to
preach the word. I have repeatedly said that I truly believe this is why you involve
yourself in the wedding (I am not differing or arguing with you in this matter). I do not
believe you would participate other wise. However, you are ignoring what I have really
said: The invitations are written, sent out, and people are invited to attend "the
wedding." I know this is hard for you to follow (I have been there). Hence, the
primary purpose of the wedding in the building with most people is to attend the wedding
of John and Susie. Down deep inside, I believe you know this, Mike. I do not have to be a
mind reader.
Again I ask you, why not send out invitations that read: "There will be preaching on
marriage and the home done at the Southside church of Christ, meeting at...., 2: 00,
December 5. Leroy Brown will be the speaker. You are invited to attend." John and
Susie will be married some where else. In this case, the manifest and primary purpose of
the gathering is the preaching of the word, no question about the matter.
Mike and the list, please consider the difference in the two invitations and answer what
is the stated primary reason of the gathering: "You are invited to attend the wedding
of John and Susie being conducted at the Southside church of Christ...." and
"you are invited to hear preaching on marriage and the home being conducted at the
Southside church of Christ....."
I remember driving by a church building with our small children where a crowd was
gathering. I asked them (my children) the purpose of the gathering (they knew two people
were getting married). "Daddy, they are gathering for a wedding." On another
occasion, I asked my girls about the reason for another gathering (they again knew in
advance the purpose by listening to announcements and talk): "Daddy, there is a
gospel meeting starting today."
Mike, I respect you and think a lot of you. I do believe you can see the difference in a
gathering for the manifest purpose of the preaching of the word (the work of the church)
and a gathering for the purpose of a wedding (the work of the home), where some biblical
teaching in incidentally done. The whole issue is really just this simple.
Thank you again for the work expended in your posts. Even if we end up not agreeing,
others should be able to see the fundamental differences in our line of reasoning and be
helped to form their own convictions regarding "church weddings."
Cordially,
Don Martin
Don Martin to Mike and the list:
Mike mentioned that this post (one referenced below) will be his last post addressed to
me on the weddings in the church building issue. I plan for this post to also be my last
to Mike. I have not been disappointed with the fine conduct of Mike. I think his arguments
in favor of weddings in the building have been the best that can be made.
Mike wrote (Saturday, September 29, 2001, Digest 2561):
Don answers:
I am not sure what Mike includes in a wedding ceremony that he conducts in the church
building. However, I shall momentarily mention some items that are basic and customary,
even for a highly structured church wedding. First, please notice Mike's logic and
rationale. The church does not send out the wedding invitations, the family does, Mike
explained. Please appreciate the situation: The family approaches the elders for
permission to use the church building for their wedding. The elders grant such permission.
The family then invites people to attend the wedding. Since the church did not invite the
people to attend the wedding, the church is not sponsoring a wedding, but is only meeting
for a worship and teaching service. Again, please do not be too hard on Mike, he is doing
the best that can be done in arguing in favor of church weddings.
Please consider the anatomy of a typical church wedding and decide if you think the
wedding is simply a worship service (that which is suppose to take place in a church
building) or if you think it is something else. Two people, a bride and groom are present
(also, others who participate). The preacher normally asks, "who gives this bride in
marriage?" The person (usually the father) says, "my wife and I." The bride
then comes forward and joins hands with the groom. The audience is silent and is watching
what is taking place in the front of the auditorium. The preacher then preaches a short
sermon on marriage. The preacher then asks, "do you wish to exchange vows?"
"Yes," replies the couple. Vows are then read and repeated by both the bride and
the groom. "Do you wish to seal these vows by the giving and receiving of
rings," the preacher then asks. "Yes," the couple replies. A ring ceremony
and additional vows follow. "I now pronounce you husband and wife," says the
preacher, "you may kiss the bride," he tells the groom. As a climax, the
preacher usually says to the audience, "I now present to you Mr. and Mrs. John
Smith."
A question for you to ask yourself is, is the wedding ceremony, in the above example,
simply incidental to the worship, as argued, or does it constitute the primary reason for
the assembly? I rather submit to you that the foregoing example of a wedding being
performed in a church building exemplifies the primary reason for the gathering (the
wedding) with some incidental teaching being injected.
I must conclude by again saying that the local church is only authorized to use its
building for that for which it is scripturally intended: Preaching the gospel to the lost
and edifying the saved (I Tim. 3: 15; Eph. 4: 16). Government matters and weddings, though
important, are not the work of the church. Therefore, the church building is not to be
used for political meetings (they, as marriage, are ordained of God, Rom. 13: 1-7, Gen. 2)
or weddings. Let the church teach about government and marriage, but conduct the affairs
of government and weddings at other appropriate places.
Again, I thank Mike for participating in this exchange on weddings in the building and I
thank you for reading them. Mike is very capable and I am sorry that he and I differ
regarding church weddings. In almost all matters, I find myself in total agreement with
Mike. I do regret that we are at opposite ends of the wedding issue. I want to share with
you, the list, in my next post some reasons why I do not believe the local church should
be involved in weddings.
Cordially,
Don Martin
Don Martin to the list:
I want to briefly share with you some reasons why the local church should not conduct
weddings in their building (building paid for and maintained out of the treasury).
The first and foremost reason why the local church should not allow weddings in their
building is because conducting weddings is not the work God has assigned to the local
church. The local church is to teach the lost, edify the saved, and minister to needy
saints, when there is the need (I Tim. 3: 15; Eph. 4: 16; I Cor. 16: 1, 2). If the local
church wants to take advantage of a teaching opportunity relative to a couple getting
married, let them do so. They can use the facilities to have a sermon on marriage and the
home, but let the wedding ceremony and the wedding itself be conducted elsewhere.
The same could be the case with a number of situations. If a boy scout troop wants to hear
what the Bible teaches about responsibility and manhood, for instance, let the church
provide the building and accommodations, including a sermon on the subject. However, the
actual boy scout meeting (particulars peculiar to the business of the troop) should be
conducted elsewhere. Weddings, scout meetings, and political matters are all good, in
their place. However, they are not the work of the church. Therefore, they should be kept
separate and distinct. Efforts should not be made to slip them in the service being
conducted in the church building under the guise of "incidentals." Such
maneuvers taxes the intelligence of the thinking person.
In addition to the fact that weddings are not the work of the church, there are
multitudinous secondary reasons why the local church should not allow their building to be
used for weddings.
(1). The problem of receptions. The ideal arrangement is to have
the reception at the same physical address as the wedding. "Why can not we have the
reception in the basement of the church building after the wedding, it would be so
convenient?" Not allowing the wedding to be conducted in the church building removes
any potential problem regarding the reception.
(2). The problem of unscriptural marriages. When the church
building is involved, the church, as such, is involved. There are unscriptural marriages
that take place in church buildings, one or both parties have no right to remarriage
(Matt. 5: 32, 19: 9). Not allowing weddings in the building eliminates the local church
from the challenge of making such decisions and creating unnecessary problems. I recall
years ago setting in on a frustrating meeting where the local church was attempting to
draw up rules regarding their building being used for weddings. The whole matter is
uncalled for and unnecessary.
(3). The problem of the church wedding image. So many have the
concept of a "church wedding." Some have this church wedding view to the point
that they do not really believe two people are spiritually married unless the wedding
takes place inside the church building. Avoiding the use of the church building for
weddings precludes fostering the church wedding image (a sacrament of the church).
(4). The problem of the bride being expecting. "Rule no....,
the bride to be must not already be expecting," some church rules state. This is an
extremely touchy matter and often results in many hard feelings. I knew one church that
was hindered for years by bad feelings among some of the members. "Our daughter
repented of her fornication and wanted to do the right thing by marrying the father of her
child, but the church refused a church wedding, our daughter was spiritually discouraged
and her repentance was made suspect!"
(5). The problem of what will and will not be allowed in the
building during the wedding. Should candles be permitted, rice, kissing the bride,
instrumental music, secular songs, etc.? Believe me, it is almost impossible to avoid all
matters that would be an "insult" to the local church.
(6). The problem of how to classify the wedding ceremony. Is the
wedding ceremony itself worship? Some will say, "yes," some answer,
"no." If the wedding ceremony is not worship, then why cannot mechanical music
and secular songs ("Here Comes the Bride) be used? However, if the wedding ceremony
is not worship, what business does it have in a building that is to be expressly used for
worship, the church building?
(7). The problem of progression. It is agreed that the wedding
should be a solemn and serious occasion. However, there is no Bible authority for the
wedding, as such, in the church building. If the local church allows the wedding on the
grounds of "it is incidental to the preaching" argument, as many do, why not
allow other "incidental matters?" The Boy Scouts have a lot going for them. Why
not allow the local troop to meet in the church building to carry out their business,
providing some teaching is done to attempt to justify "the incidental?" Who is
going to draw the line as to what "incidental" may or may not be executed in the
church building? If one incidental can be justified, then so can others, others that have
a little different nature and design; until, we evolve into the fun and frolic of the full
grown social gospelism so characteristic of many churches, just as long as we include some
Bible teaching. (For additional reading relative the the church building, please
click on, "The Church Building.")
Cordially,
Don Martin