Marc blogs at Marc Bewley. From 2008 to 2014 Bro. Marc has served in the metro Detroit area through the BSCM and NAMB as a Church Planter Catalyst. He currently serves in Chattanooga, TN as a Missions Pastor at Dallas Bay Baptist Church.
In 1986, I was a twenty-five year old church planter in northern Michigan. A couple from down the street, who had been attending our new church, approached me and asked me to perform their wedding. Fortunately a generous friend had given me a copy of Criswell’s Guidebook for Pastors as an ordination gift.
I quickly turned to the wedding chapter and learned how to perform a wedding. It was to be my first. During the ceremony I used the phrase, “By the power vested in me by the state of Michigan and before God and these assembled witnesses, I now pronounce you husband and wife. You may kiss your bride!” Since 1986, I have performed hundreds of weddings in Michigan, Indiana, and Tennessee.
In 1999, my family and I moved to the mission field of Bogota, Colombia, South America, where I pastored the Bogota Baptist Chapel, which was the only English-speaking Baptist church in Bogota. Before too long, a lovely couple came and asked me to perform their wedding. I looked through Criswell’s book but to no avail. How would I perform a wedding in Bogota, Colombia?
I asked around and found my answer. I think the procedure that applied in Bogota is the one we need to adopt in the United States after the SCOTUS ruling. After asking around, I found out that I couldn’t legally perform a wedding in Bogota. The couple would first have to go before a notary to have a civil ceremony. Then, a day or two later, I performed what we consider to be a church wedding.
I learned that in Colombia the wedding ring goes on the right hand and that I no longer said, “by the power vested in me by the state.” Instead, I said, “by the power of the God I serve, I pronounce you husband and wife.” The state and I were no longer partners in instituting a marital union. In time, I found the procedure to be freeing. I had no forms to sign and no license to return to the courthouse. Instead, I simply conducted a beautiful ceremony, read Scripture, and shared a wedding sermon. Standing before me, a young couple pledged their commitment of marriage “before God and these assembled witnesses.”
Was I wrong when I joined with the state to do their “work” for them in performing marriages? No, I did the norm, and I saw it as part of my ministry. But in today’s climate and in light of recent changes, I have decided that moving forward, I am going to require a civil ceremony before I perform the religious one. Using this system simplifies my role. My part is biblical. It is clean cut. Some may say I have “abandoned” the playing field and allowed the culture to win. My response is that working for the state should have never been my field anyway. “I wrestle not with flesh and blood” but with a higher battlefield with the “King of kings” as my battle commander and VICTORY is assured.
Jesus was faced with a dilemma about paying taxes. The Pharisees had Him cornered. How did Jesus respond?
“Let me see the coin,” He said. “Whose picture is on this coin? Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and render unto God that which is God’s.”
As I look at the county’s marriage license and look at my Bible, I am struck by the fact that the license belongs to the state. I can no longer in good faith be the state’s stand-in. Instead, I will take my Bible and lovingly perform a religious wedding ceremony. By the power of the God I serve, I will pronounce them husband and wife. Fulfilling my role in such a manner honors the God I represent and keeps the state out of my church.
P.S. A petition in agreement may be signed here: http://www.firstthings.com/marriage-pledge
Evidenced by a spate of articles here and elsewhere is that clergy are becoming aware of their dual role in weddings. Some will opt out of the state licensing system but most will not. Although I have used the provocative phrase “agent of the state” in regard to clergy signing state marriage licenses, the fact is that there are a number of areas where the wheel of church rubs against the wheel of state.
Most SBC clergy would have difficulty requiring couples to marry twice, since most churches expect their minister to perform weddings.
At one level the minister would be irresponsible in not cooperating with the state in performing a marriage that the state considers illegal (due to age, relationship, or prior marriages). The state issued license requires the couple to certify, prove, or declare these things so by the minister requiring the state marriage first he is in a sense cooperating.
There are proposals floating around here in GA that would shift the whole business of marriage away from probate judges to state-approved clergy or other non-religious, private individuals. This could get complex.
I think this is a tool to keep in the garage.
At this point, I’m not afraid to say, “In accord with the laws of the state of Iowa.” However, in a few years, we may need to go to something like this.
Agreed. I don’t really understand the conflict of conscience at this point. I don’t have a problem with the members of my church serving in capacities that make them in a sense “agents of the state.” Similarly, I really do not see the problem with me in some sense being an “agent of the state” as long as the state is not seeking to coerce my conscience. If that begins to happen, it will be necessary for us to step away. I am already married so it doesn’t affect me, but I would be annoyed if I had to go through an extra step to get my license signed when the officiating minister could just sign the thing himself.
If my church were in Oregon, I might be thinking differently.
I truly feel if we take this stance, most couples will just stick with the civil ceremony or will opt to choose a pastor that has a different opinion of things. Why can’t we look at this in a different light anyway? Instead of me acting as an “agent of the state” I see it as the state recognizing the authority of God in this particular manner. As a citizen of the USA where freedom of religion is part of our guaranteed rights, I also acknowledge that the state has the right to recognize the authority of other religions or indeed, no religion at all if it so chooses. I’m still not sure why this is such a big deal. I feel like we are painting ourselves into a corner with these attitudes.
This is the way they do it in Venezuela too. My wife was the matron of honor at the wedding of our Venezuelan contact and they did two ceremonies like this: one civil, and the other with the church.
I think the point is the separation of the church and state. I am not talking about as individuals and our country. Far too long we have said that the U.S. is a “Christian” nation. It is not and becoming less “Christian” as the years progress. We will lose our tax exempt status one day and be treated like every other corporation in the U.S. (I’m not wanting this but it WILL happen). We will then understand what the church has experienced in most other countries and has experienced for thousands of years. No special status at all.
Will people opt of the religious ceremony? Maybe if there faith is that shallow, we shouldn’t be performing that wedding anyway….
“I’m not wanting this but it WILL happen”
Yes you are wanting this to happen because you already believe it will. If you are praying with this attitude your prayers have no value because you have already said “it will happen.” This attitude (even if you didn’t mean it) is exactly the problem so many have today. Who says that this nation needs to continue in its course to secularism? The people of God who disappear from politics, being civil-servants, and retreat into the church, that’s who. Now, we may end up there anyway, but we will certainly end up there with the attitude “I don’t want it to happen, but it will happen.”
If the church huddles in their cathedrals, those cathedrals will entomb them.
Why would you think it is okay to call Marc a liar?
Nate, this kind of behavior is not necessary.
Dave, I’m not call Marc a liar, but the quote is what it is. I was thinking and hoping that Marc might clarify himself because I don’t really think he thinks that. If he does, then he has already conceded defeat and there is no use to pray or fight because concession has already been made.
Moreover, it’s not just Marc. I see this particular type of comment often and I don’t really think people are thinking through what they are really saying. Again, I’ll let Marc reply but I would hope what he really meant was, “I don’t want this to happen, but I don’t see anyway (at the moment) how will won’t.” There is a large difference between the two statements.
Nate, you can’t call someone a liar then say, “I’m not calling him a liar.”
Marc says, “I’m not wanting this to happen.”
You say, “Yes, you do..”
You are saying that he is NOT speaking the truth.
How about talking to people with respect?
Quote him properly Dave. Marc said, “I’m not wanting this but it WILL happen.” The quote is what it is. He is saying (in all Caps) it WILL happen. How then, can he not want it to happen? He can’t see the future (as far as I know), therefore he has already conceded there is nothing he can do about it. Hence, he can’t really not want it to happen. You can’t have it both ways.
Again, for about the 3rd time, these types of statements coming from Christians are disheartening. It’s one thing to say the times are horrible, it’s another to say I’m want them to get better, but they WONT. How can I want them to be better if I’ve already determined they WONT?
Marc can speak for himself, but you also need to quote him accurately. He DID NOT say ONLY, “I’m not wanting this to happen.” He said, “I’m not wanting this, but it WILL happen.” So which part of that quote is he putting the emphasis on? I would say the CAPS. Marc is free to let me know what he really meant.
I’ll say this. I don’t believe I disrespected Marc by quoting him. If I did, then I apologize. I would like to hear from Marc how he can reconcile his quote.
Marc can speak for himself, but it is my job to call people on disrespectful behavior.
I can say, “I don’t want the Patriots to win, but I think it’s gonna happen.”
You accused Marc of not speaking truthfully – ie, of lying. Disagree with him. Fine. But try to discourse within the boundaries of basic kindness, please.
Dave, I did say I apologize if I disrespected Marc. What is somewhat mind-boggling is that you keep misquoting him.
You said, “I can say, “I don’t want the Patriots to win, but I think it’s gonna happen.”” What you seemingly keep failing to realize is that your statement DID NOT say “I don’t want the Patriots to win, but they WILL.” There is a huge difference between “I think” and “they will”. Your statement and his are not the same.
I would like to hear Marc on what he really meant. As I keep reiterating, if we as Christians look at the situation, proclaim we would like things to be different, but say they cannot or will not be different, that is completely a defeatist attitude. I read this often from many Christians, and mostly it is under the concept that the country will never move back to better morals, better values, etc. Moreover, most of the folks who proclaim the country cannot or will not change, more often than not, say this is a good thing for the church, in that, we (believers) shouldn’t have been trying to have a “christian” nation to begin with. I think that attitude will lead to disastrous results if Christians abandon the political spectrum and retreat into our churches.
It’s almost (I said almost) as if they actually want to be persecuted. While all believers should be ready to endure persecution, I don’t think we should readily seek it. (NOTICE: I said, “It’s almost as if.” I didn’t say, “They Want to be Persecuted.”)
I’m not parsing words with you.
Treat people with respect, Nate. Thank you.
Miller, Pardon the interruption….
“I can say, “I don’t want the Patriots to win, but I think it’s gonna happen.”
I don’t know how that statement could possibly be considered a lie – it has certainly proven year after year over and over to be a true statement!
Sometimes in this world, cheaters win.
It’s kinda deflating.
oh brother.
A Yankee fan identifying another team as cheaters?
So, if deflating footballs in, what has only been proven to be in one half of one game, that was not even close (and after the footballs were “re-inflated for the second half, they played even better), constitutes “winning cheaters”.. – does multiple seasons of drugging and cheating constitute calling into question all wins that took place during the career of the drugging cheater Yankees? 😉
I’m afraid your brain has turned to grits. Can you name one time that the Yankees, as an organization, have been accused of cheating.
I can talk about the ethical lapses of the Patriots, it’s a long list. They are pretty much well known as a cheating franchise.
The Yankees have had A-Rod – but they worked WITH baseball and actually pulled for harsher penalties, not lighter.
I’m fairly used to it, but the argument is weak, tired, old and demonstrates a lack of understanding of sports.
“Well, you are a Yankee fan and so…”
The Yankees have won 27 championships and have never been accused of spying, of doctoring the balls or any of the other things that the Patriots have been.
The only people who don’t realize the Patriots are cheaters are the Patriots fans.
“But you are a Yankees fan…” Blah…blah…blah….
Can you name the baseball team that hasn’t had anyone suspended for or implicated in steroids?
And the evidence is that deflating footballs was a regular practice for the New England Cheaters.
But how many of those Yankee wins were achieved, at least in part, due to drugging/cheating players?
If we are going to call franchise cheaters because of a couple of events and all….how many Yankee players have drugged and cheated over they years?
again…the “manipulation of the balls” has been proven to have happened in one half of one game that they won handily and played even better in the second half with the “properly inflated balls.”
no, the speculation is that – the evidence only shows one half of one game.
Oh Wow, take a day off and miss everything.
Nate, in no way do I propose we huddle up in our churches and do nothing. Having spent almost nine years in Bogota and eight years in Detroit, MI. I am all for getting into the playing field and going “no huddle” and running some plays.
To be even more blunt in my opinion, which my wife doesn’t think I can be more blunt, I grew up in the “Moral Majority” age when a lot of churches put too much emphasis in all things political. Christianity has suffered a back lash. They’re all Republicans most think.
Our playing field is the kingdom of God. Our country is getting more secular than Christian. The Supreme Court just changed the definition of marriage. Don’t lose hope but understand that Obama isn’t the problem and Bush isn’t the solution. Jesus Christmis the answer. We will one day be faced with an even more secular nation than we now have. The answer isn’t in politics it’s in the church of Jesus getting out of the pew and being the Army of the Lord!
Not praying for us to be more secular. Nor wanting it to happen but pointing out that this needs to be discussed before we get there. Looks like we are discussing it.
I’m sorry if my indelicate language has hurt anyone. I am praying that our nation WILL EXPERIENCE REVIVAL! But it will come in our churches not through the political process. I do vote. Even planned my trip back to the US to be a part of voting while in South America….
I am in no way a Yankee defender, but Tarheel’s inconsistency is once again baffling. He says that the Patriots only deflated footballs in one game which they won handily. Then he accuses the Yankees of “multiple seasons of drugging and cheating.” Ummm…a drug test only proves that you took steroids, not the duration or extent of your usage.
In fairness Dave Miller, you know that the Yankees were pushing for a stiffer penalty so they could avoid paying A-Rod’s contract, not because they wanted to take a stand for what is good and right.
The good news is that in the end, we will all be Yankees fan.
Adam,
Dave Miller implied that the New England Patriots are cheaters because of a couple of isolated prove that events – I simply made the point that there have been over the years not just a rod but multiple Yankee players who have been proven to have been drugging and cheating – so by his standard if the couple of proven events against the patriots make them the “New England cheaters”. – then what do multiple proven instances against the Yankees make them by ace Millers own “logic”?
Difference: Yankee PLAYERS took steroids – like every other team. Name a team, their players took steroids.
The New England Patriots TEAM has cheated – repeatedly. Spygate. Deflategate. It’s not a secret that the Patriots are not an ethical team. They cheat. They only ones who deny that are Patriots fans.
If that’s heaven, then all this hope and joy stuff is a farce! :-O
You couldn’t get me to warm up to a Yankees fan if you cremated us together.
Um, Miller –
Deflate gate The only people who have been proven to have been involved or not players nor could be considered “the franchise” they were small time employees and “possibly” /”maybe” ( according to the official NFL report) one player – so again by your logic doesn’t that absolving the franchise itself of the cheating scandal? Or do single events make an entire franchise cheaters?
As for spying – again a couple of coaches – Not everyone – so by your logic is the whole franchise cheaters? Or does a single event or a couple of events make the whole franchise cheaters?
“The good news is that in the end, we will all be Yankees fan.”
Speak for yourself. I am going to heaven.
Amens, Adam. Amens!
Marc, thanks for replying.
I hope you can understand my angst with your statement, “I don’t want this to happen but it WILL happen.” I also understand Dave didn’t want to parse words, but grammar matters. Your statement, grammatically, is highly tenuous since you are making two very separate statements linked together, and therefore, especially with the CAPS, it seemed you had landed on the second portion and not the first. I hope you can also understand my statements about many Christians who have already surrendered and have retreated into the church and left the political and secular arena to the pagans. This is a complete defeatist attitude. I appreciate that you have stated that you do not want to do this. I agree that revival only comes through believers and not the government and I pray for that as well.
Again, your language didn’t hurt me, but your clarification is helpful. I apologize if you were offended by my rebuttal to the grammar of your statement, but I hope you can see where I was coming from.
Now is not the time for the church to retreat from society, in fact, I would argue that we retreated from it back in the 50s and 60s and laid the foundation for what we are dealing with today.
Could it be that our inability to think through this issue pertaining to options and approach is merely that we are creatures of habit. The world is changing fast and I fear we may not have thought out in front on some these issues enough. Those of us who refuse to buckle will indeed need a path. I am not sure which path is correct yet, but I am certain that with God’s help, we will find it. We cannot pull out of marriage nor should we lead our people down a path that has them embracing the civil over the religious.
Being a Pastor/Shepard today is not for wimps! We have many tough decisions in front of us.
If the people don’t want a religious ceremony. what does that say about them?
Amen, Mike
Mike: Religious ceremonies are social constructions, not biblical mandates, so it doesn’t say anything about them.
Church weddings are tradition, nothing more. That’s the problem with traditions; they are fine as long as they serve us, but they become a problem when we begin to serve them.
I’m not sure the argument “it is not biblical” is sufficient to set a matter to rest.
There is an infinite amount of truth that is not “biblical”–that is it is not directly addressed in a biblical text.
One simple matter would be, “two plus two equals four.” That is not biblical. That proposition is found in no text, but few people dispute the truth value of that statement.
There were certainly “marriages” in the Bible–some directly orchestrated by God, Himself. The fact that the particulars of the ceremony are not laid out in a text, does not mean they never took place. Many things are evident in the Bible but not delineated.
There is no doubt whatsoever based upon the words of Jesus that marriage between a man and a women is a “sacred, spiritual, God-ordained union.” This would seem to justify a “church” ceremony because the Church is the only organization through which the Spirit of God operates.
So, I dismiss your dismissal of a religious, church foundation for a marriage ceremony. Tradition is important as Paul points out in a couple of places.
I do not think marriage will be strengthened by disconnecting the ceremony from the participation of the community of faith.
There’s nothing wrong with church weddings. We just aren’t commanded to do it. And as I said, there’s nothing wrong with tradition, as long as they serve us, not vice versa.
Personally, I like the idea of a couple repeating marriage vows in front of their brothers and sisters in Christ in the setting of a local church. There is an important community aspect to our Christian discipleship, and this practice seems to go along with it. But I am unsure of what is the biblical argument, if any, that a pastor (or elder or bishop) has special authority to declare someone married. This also gets into the whole concept of ministerial ordination. While I believe in laying on of hands, and publicly commending people to specific roles of service in the church, I do not believe the Bible supports the idea of conferring lifelong spiritual status (i.e. “ordaining” them to the “gospel ministry” at large). While it is true that only some are pastor/elder/bishops in a local church, all Christians are called to be “gospel ministers” at large.
In any case, I agree with Marc’s basic thesis here. I just don’t see where biblically “ordained” ministers have special authority to declare someone married–whether as representatives of the state or not.
As David points out above, our current changing landscape is forcing us to look at things that should have been looked at long ago. I have been trying to grasp the idea of how Christians handed over to the states (or Government) the whole marriage issue in the first place. It seems to point to the need of revisiting the history of marriage from the OT and then NT and then proceeding forward to today. Somewhere along the way is a point that will open our eyes to the road map for what is needed today. At least, I hope it will!
I’m leaning toward saying, I would love (Assuming something here) to perform a Christian marriage ceremony but I no longer sign the State wedding license. For all I know, in Texas, anybody could sign it. Maybe the groom, maybe one of the parents could do it; but that way I can tell everyone I don’t do ‘legal’ weddings at all.
OR am I being a wimp?
Clark,
My staff and I just had that same conversation. It is indeed an option that needs to be explored.
Marc,
Great post, now the question is for those who do not do the civil ceremony but only officiate a holy wedding is this. Does the couple vow to return to the altar if they divorce? If my question does not make sense I hope my more learned and spiritual brethren will flesh it out for me. I think this is a dialogue that is sorely needed.
wilbur
It definitely makes sense. When you separate the two, Civil and religious marriage. I think then the biblically correct move is that people who live in the community of faith who divorce should be faced with church discipline.
What we need to move away from is the the pastor will marry anyone who shows up and asks to be married. It makes it a religious ceremony. Would you just baptize anyone who asked? Salvation and discipleship is required. Same with young couples. Older women teach the younger….read that somewhere…. If I could only remember where….lol
Marc,
I do not know many Pastors who do as you suggest.
If you wish to “abandon the field” to the secular, then press on. In my case, I would vote to find another minister (as someone suggested above). However, it would be my wife (to be) whose vote would count a bit more than mine if our minister of choice would not do the whole thing (in accord with the laws of the State of Texas).
But maybe you want to make yourself less relevant to the life of your church. It seems to me that following Mark’s decision in this would be a giant step in that direction. This just does not seem to me to be the way that any minister should go.
Bennett,
Are you suggesting that pastors should compromise and accommodating in order to be “relevant”? Where would you draw the line?
wilbur