Only One Half of Today's Weddings Use a Chruch or Clergy
First, branches of Christianity said, "We'll show you who is running things. We will not allow weddings of mixed-race couples." Later branches said, "We'll show you who is running things. We will not allow weddings of gay couples." As time moved along we found churches were not running things at all. The culture, society at large, is running things and doing as it pleases. Churches used to host 3/4th of weddings. Now it is a one-half and falling. On top of that, more couples form households without marriage.
In the comments following the link several people asked if those who married outside their faith knew the Bible admonishes religious marriage is required in the Bible. That reflects the problem in Christianity, people in the faith do not understand what is happening. The Bible is growing less relevant as are the clergy who sell it.
From what we know of ancient cultures, it makes sense the church bow out. Marriages were part of survival of tribes and clans. Leaders figured out other groups they wanted peace with instead of war. Marriages were arranged by what we would call local governments. The shaman was not involved.
Religious leaders saw an opportunity in marriage. If couple bonded with the faith numbers the faith would rise as the population grew. This is how marriage came to be included in Christianity. It did not grow out of a need but out of a self-serving opportunity.
If Christianity had been smarter it would have realized it was on the outside of marriage and would only have a place if it acted strategically. A good strategy would have been embracing mixed race, mixed religion and gay marriages from day one. It would have presented an image of an institution boosting human diversity and broadening the human experience. As mentions, however, it did exactly the wrong things. It assumed it was in a strong position to regulate marriage when its position was weak.
I think churches could regain their role. They could offer churches and clergy free of charge. Temperence churches could set aside their rules and let the beer flow.
When change is inevitable, go with the flow.
Jon; re. "... asked...knew the Bible admonishes religious marriage is required in the Bible." Not true ! ! In fact, there is not one verse that demands it. In fact, apart from the RCC and associates with related dogma, which considers marriage a sacrament, others do not, and consider marriage a civil matter, conducted by a licensed pastor in church or out, or licensed representative of the state. All are recognized as valid.
ReplyDeleteIt is evident you too do not understand what is and is not.
Helper, "It is evident you too do not understand what is and is not."
ReplyDeleteAh yes, our favorite theological hair splitter at work again. I just wrote in "marriage" on the Luth. Mo. Synod website and a page or more of references came up. Missouri Synod members can learn what the Bible says about "the holy institution of marriage." Even though marriage is not a sacrament as it with Catholics your denomination wants to make it clear members are to be married in its churches and children raised in the denomination. There is no revenue without people in the pews.
Jon; Go back to my 4;58, and actually read my response to your claim that marriage (religious or not), is required in the bible. If it is as you say, provide the verses. If it is not, the discussion is over, and your point is ------pointless.
ReplyDeleteYou are incapable of understanding the institution of marriage and the administration of it.
You are the hair splitter on this. Trying to introduce dogma where dogma does not exist.
Helper -- You are saying the Bible does not require religious marriage. I'm sure there are various views on that, just as there are about everything else in the Bible. For the sake of moving along I will take your word for that.
DeleteWhat is true, absolutely, is all branches of Christianity, including yours, try to create the impression the Bible requires religious weddings. People BELIEVE they are to be married in their church and their marriage will not please the invisible god unless the marriage takes place by clergy and under the supervision of clergy. Church members have been led to believe they are be married in their church. Whether it is a "sacrament" or not is beside the point.
Times are changing. The church, yours included, never should have linked marriage to the Bible because people learned to view the Bible with suspicion. If denominations like yours were smarter they would drop the prohibition against licensed women preachers.
Jon; Can't provide Biblical verses demanding / requiring church weddings? All your points are- - - - pointless.
Delete@your 8;10; Again, you are trying to make a marriage a sacrament. when it is not. Another fail.
Last paragraph; If anyone wishes to have a marriage without being related to church they are free to do so. If in the future they wish to be in attndance in our church, they are welcome, and we will recognize their marriage as legal and valid, even if married by a properly licensed female dog catcher.
You can't provide verses requiring church weddings because there aren't any.
Re. "smarter." another throw something against the wall. TS.
was having a little problem with Google going crazy.
Again your point is pointless. Throw something against the wall and hope something will stick
helper--I can help you understand. Money is the reason all branches of the faith exist. Yours is no exception. It is there because people somewhere sometime gave money. No money, no God. This hurts and I understand that.
DeleteIn all theology are items to keep the money coming in. If it is not in what pointy headed theologians call theology then it is embedded in other places in the enterprise. The latter is where you will find marriage in the church in your denomination. It is there because weddings in the church are more profitable than weddings outside the church.
If people in the pews believe the Bible wants them to marry in the church building then whether or not it is actually in the Bible matters not one bit.
Jon; How come you don't print "no charge for church, or minister"? It goes against your thesis. There is an "exception" and it is ours, that of which you are woefully ignorant.
DeleteThe problem is; you can't stand to be proven wrong, and revert to not printing . You are acting exactly like the RCC. Another feature of yours you cannot admit. The power to refuse printing is an exact paralell to burning books you don't like. Yes, Rome, Hitler and you are in good company. This too you won't print.
Do you have the balls to print my last posts?
ReplyDelete