The Ceremony Has Left the Building
As the clock ticks so many things change. The wedding ceremony and funeral used to be always at the church. Now, even those affiliated with a church are choosing to have their weddings, etc., somewhere else. It seems to me to be part of the church not being the center of social and ceremonial life in the U.S. as it once was.
We have a small family buy it has run the gamut of wedding ceremonies. Our daughter made quite an effort to join a church so she and her husband to be could be married there. Her husband was raised a Catholic and she thought it would be hard enough for them to use a Protestant church, let alone a hotel. It was a wonderful event and his Catholic family was happy with it too.
The son's wedding was at the other end of the spectrum. They were married in their backyard by a tarot card reader. They had another wedding in Thailand that was a huge affair.
All of this seems to me to be a good trend, the withdrawal of the church in personal lives where it never should have been in the first place. Marriages before Christianity were arranged by tribal leaders. Today we would call that the government. The idea marriage was a private affair was not present, marriage was to help the family/tribe by establishing relationships profitable to both tribes. The Christian church inserted itself into the marriage business. I suspect it was to maintain its membership and thus its revenue flow. There is not a sound reason Christianity has any reason to butt into marriage decisions or ceremonies.
It seems inevitable the resistance to gay marriage pushed away some heterosexual couples from using the church for their marriages. If the church turned away our good friends then we will turn away the church.
The biggest mistake in Christianity was made by the Catholic Church. It forbade divorced couples from remarrying with the church's blessing. Think of the many thousands of couples who might be Catholics today but are not because of this barbaric rule. Add to that the children who might have been raised as Catholics but were not because their parents had left to be married elsewhere.
For churches, it's goodbye weddings.
Jon; I'll tell you a little secret. In some denominations, both here and in Europe, just two generations ago, most marriages were preformed at the homes of either the bride or groom, mostly the bride. To this day, home marriages are not unusual. Equally so with baptisms and funerals. In most denominations, marriage and others are not considered a sacrament (with strong evidence), which I will not debate here.
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid your new trend is an old practice going back centuries without reservation. On the other hand, a large building such as a church is a good idea in the winter or on a rainy day, and the church basement ladies do provide a nice meal/ lunch after the ritual. These days, there seems to be a one up man's ship in the biggest and fanciest weddings. It is known that a father of the groom spent more than twenty thousand for all the frills. (including the dance band, and open bar.) Dresses etc. are another item, of which I am not knowing. In my family, three generations have worn the same wedding gown. Four generations on the same baptismal gown. Two of which were preformed in the living room of the groom's parents.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteTsm; Absolutely not a sacrament, or "something of a sacrament"., (Not a means of grace; for the forgiveness of sin). Any marriage legally performed by a licensed official of the state is recognized as valid and legal. However it is not a "utilitarian contract".
DeleteWith in the church family, It is a civil ceremony performed in a religious setting, (usually), with the blessings of family and those in attendance, encompassed with the words and blessings of God applied to the married couple. A "sacramental" in your definition comes close, with the addition to "the spiritual life" in marriage and resulting family, but also to the confessed vows between the married couple.
Contrary to the common understanding, we actually have three sacraments. The usual baptism and communion, with visible means, (water and the word, bread and wine,) but confession and absolution without visible means. All three are contained in the forgiveness of sin, both original and actual. In the daily liturgy, the very first item is congregational confession, followed by the announcement that "upon your confession, your sins are forgiven." None of which is contained in the rest of the RC "sacraments".
Re. the Lateran Council, and Trent, Marriage and the others are not connected to the forgiveness of sin. They may be considered to be "sacramentals" if you like, similar to wearing a cross around the neck, or a prayer of thanksgiving before a meal, or before bed time, but not a true Sacrament. If my understanding is correct, Last Rites, (annointing of the sick) may in addition, contain the Eucharist (communion,) but that is a separate function added to it.
helper "Any marriage legally performed by a licensed official of the state is recognized as valid and legal."
DeleteCatholics would help themselves with such a rule. But then, clergy would lose control over something they enjoy-- condemning marriage after divorce. Condemning is so much fun--they don't want to give it up.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehelper, while we are at it, I would like to know more re the LCMS theology of the Eucharist. I have been told that there has been a renewed emphasis on Eucharistic worship in Lutheranism in recent years. I have also read that you folks eschew any notion of a Eucharistic sacrifice, presumably on the view that fallen man is not worthy to offer God anything. and that the Eucharistic sacrifice was done once and for all on Calvary. but you do believe in the Real Presence, do you not? consubstantiation?
Deletetsm; re. "Renewed emphasis on eucharistic worship in Lutheranism in recent years"; No renewal, the "emphasis" remains the same, however many congregations have had communion every other Sunday, or twice a month, (a tradition from pioneer days), especially when there is a dual parish. However there has been in recent years a trend to communion every Sunday when the individual congregation deems it possible. There is no dogmatic regulation.
Deletere. "Eschew Eucharistic sacrifice". By that I assume you mean "The (RC) sacrifice of the Mass". You would be correct. In addition, I would re-word your "fallen man is not worthy to offer God anything"; It would be more accurate to say "Not appropriate to offer to God, as the sacrifice was done once and for all on Calvary. " The Sacrifice of the Mass becomes partly a matter works, not faith.
re. "real presence"; A favorite topic of mine. Yes most emphatically, "The Real Presence, both of body and blood", bread AND wine. (in both kinds). Not transubstantiation, as a philosophical or mechanical definition of a mystery which no one can describe in the consecration of the elements.
re. "consubstantiation "' Absolutely not consubstantiation, which was credited to us by first by the Reformed, (Calvinists) and Rome, also in some misinformed dictionaries. but soundly rejected 500 years ago in the Book of Concord. and continually ever since. --I quote; "Nor is there any consubstantiation or mixture of bread and body, wine and blood, nor is the body locally enclosed in the bread, that Lutherans were accused of. " It is simply another attempt to give a philosophical or mechanical explanation to a mystery that can't be defined. The simple words in the consecration are; "Take and eat, this is my body. And He took a cup and gave thanks, and gave thanks and gave it to them, saying "Drink from it, all of you for this is my blood of the covenant which to be shed on behalf of many for forgiveness of sins." You will note (1.) The "This is" both with the bread and wine, (body and blood). The cup was not withheld, as is a common practice in the RC. (2.) Not; " this represents" , nor "spiritually present", "This Is" is simply this is". We allow a mystery to remain a mystery. The same argument at the Marburg Colloquy between Luther and Zwingli, who claimed; " it represents", and the Calvinists who claim "a spiritual presence. In addition, nor is it a capernistic chewing of flesh and bone.
I hope this helps. If you are really interested, get The Book of Concord. and/or Luther's small catechism 1941 or later editions from CPH. or "Christian Dogmatics-" J P Mueller CPH. I recommend Mueller for the most concise explanation on all subjects.
Tsm; By the way, what I have explained is the same in all Lutheran denominations, not just the LCMS.
DeleteGlad to be of help.
tsm; Oh shoot, as I went to bed last night, I remembered there is another approach to "The real presence". It is described as "A Memorial Meal". Kinda sorta new age claimed by a slight few in the store front/ house church movement, but not so new, as the Jehovah's Witnesses use the term in their once a year utilization.
Deletethanks helper. your take on the matter sounds a lot like what I think is the general position of the Orthodox: it's a profound mystery and that is that. no Aristotelean philosophizing.
Deletetsm; When you say Orthodox, I assume you mean the most common and historical non-Catholic take. The "Orthodox denomination, is a different matter entirely. As I understand the Greek Orthodox, and related sub-sets have pretty much the same teaching on the Eucharist, Grace, and number of sacraments as the RCC. You must remember much of the RCC dogma on this , the Priesthood and Mariology among others were a slow growth and expansion starting about in the year 800, and greatly expanded about the year 1200. A far cry from the earliest extra biblical documents such as the Didache.
DeleteThanks for bearing with me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deletetsm; re. James. Not true. Your "who Lutherans don't like much" is inaccurate. The claim against the book of James was promoted by the RCC with the complaint of Luther throwing out some books from the Canon. In fact, what Luther said was; "James was an epistle of straw (((compared ))) to the rest of the New Testament, due to the fact that it did not contain the Gospel. Indeed, Luther used James as a text for sermons when fitting. (I have all of Luther's sermons).
DeleteRe "the other books", (The dutercanonicals, AKA the apocrypha ; (Intertestimental books). In fact Luther translated all of them, and included them in the back of his translation. His reasoning was; "That which is beneficial to read, but no doctrine should be derived from them. In fact, even the RCC designates them of a different genre with the term given; Dutercanonical, ie. "along side", with some Greek mythology included. The main reasons they were held on to was they justified the doctrines of purgatory, and the growing trend of Marian "tradition." Also some of which is also of questionable provinance, and questionable time frames. In short, your understanding is understandable, but completely untrue. Sorry.
tsm; After thinking about James a little bit. Although James contains little of the Gospel, (the good news), it does present the result of the Gospel, and the love of Christ going out to individuals and community through the one influenced by the Gospel. (the horizontal as a result of the virtical.) I know Luther would have been aware of this, and he had preached on this often, however if he was simply comparing the content of James to the Gospels and other epistles, the absence of Gospel related content would have come to the fore. For Luther, his mantra was; "Is it Law or is it Gospel?" (ps, not civil law, but sacred law, essentially the 10 commandments, as laid out and explained in his catechism.
Delete