So I’m talking to this guy who doesn’t believe in organized religion, doesn’t go to Church ever, isn’t raising his kids in a religious environment, says he doesn’t like people who attend Church, and yet he and his wife got married in a Church by a priest and are planning to renew their vows (10 year) with a priest, ceremony in a Church, and celebration.
What’s up with people who want nothing to do with religion, God, or a Church to want to get married in a Church? Why not just the civil service ceremony?
Most likely it is due to family pressures, but you are spot on with this observation. Maybe it’s the idea of the “traditional” wedding with all the expens…I mean, pomp and ceremony, etc., where it doesn’t feel like it’s real unless it’s done the “normal” way.
As already mentioned, it ranks right up there with the highest of hypocrosies.
Because it’s kinda neat. Personally certain things “Fit in” that atomsphere. Even if you despise religion you have to admit the there is some VERY cool church architecture out there and it makes for an amazing backdrop to a wedding.
When I was married neither my wife nor I wanted to go the church route. After finding out some info on teh justice and figureing out we’d have no idea who would show up on the day of the wedding and or in what shape we decided to look up some local pastors. Ended up finding a very nice local, liberal, pastor that would wed us despite our beliefs. We didn’t however get married in a church it was an outdoor wedding.
Frankly I think this has less to do with hypocrisy of those getting married and more to do with the look and feel of the wedding. Personally I find it more hypocritical of the church to accept this kind of wedding if indeed they have deep beliefs.
I have absolutely no religious beliefs whatso ever, but that doesn’t keep me from going to interesting things at church. Going to a well done, midnight, Gregorian Chant, mass on Christmas eve is VERY cool, even if you have zero belief in the rituals themselves.
Or maybe it’s just a nice place to have a wedding ceremony. I was married in a Universalist Unitarian meetinghouse (not a church, I guess) despite my atheism and determination to not raise any theoretical children in a religious household. We were married by the Reverend of the congregation in a non-religious ceremony. A nice little place, convenient to hotels for out-of-area guests and the reception site. Reverend understood where we were coming from, and worked with us to have the kind of ceremony we wanted. Having it in a “church” made my religious mother-in-law happy, too.
If you define “Church” as “Catholic Church”, then never mind.
I’m wondering why churches offer their wedding $ervice$ to non-believers of that denomination. It’s religious place, not a business.
I fidn it very strange that a religious place, and a religious leader would actually go through the steps of having non-religoius people take an oath in a religious place, in God’s name.
Perhaps they have other non-religious vows, and perhaps they feel a obligation to serve the community in traditional ways. But their are other halls and buildings that can host a wedding ceremony, even without the stained glass windows.
Kinda bothers me.
Don’t church leaders meet with the prospective couple for a few weeks to talk about their religious background and beliefs and their committment to marriage? Why would a minister oversee a marriage of non-religious people in the church building itself?
Frankly I think this has less to do with hypocrisy of those getting married and more to do with the look and feel of the wedding. Personally I find it more hypocritical of the church to accept this kind of wedding if indeed they have deep beliefs.
I think it is wonderful that churches would reach out in this way to non-beleivers. It is possible that a seed would be planted with them by this contact. Church should not be a country club for its members.
I got married by a judge. I am not religious, and didn’t want to get married in a church. Why would I?
BUT I will say, I don’t think some people are sure that there are other ways to go, really. And they aren’t ambitious enough to do the research. I wrote my own ceremony, found a judge, found a cute little cottagey/chapel thingie (attached to a reception hall–and non-religious) and all that jazz, and you would not BELIEVE the # of people who were like “I totally had no idea you could do that.” They just assume b/c most people get married in a church of some sort, that’s the way you do it.
And, I’ll admit…it’s probably a hell of a lot easier
I think it is wonderful that churches would reach out in this way to non-beleivers.
Interesting. I’m not sure that I agree that the church is “reaching out”, but interesting.
I also don’t think I would want people attending church for a minimum number of times just so they can get married in said church … just as I don’t want people in under-developed countries to “convert” in order to gain access to medical supplies and food.
It is possible that a seed would be planted with them by this contact.
Again, interesting. I wonder what % of non-religious people have post-ceremony contact with the church they were married in.
Church should not be a country club for its members.
I agree. IMO, getting married under church (in front of God), and repeating wedding vows that include the words “So help you God” make the event a religious tradition and event. I view wedding vows as a serious oath (i.e., a legal contract to use a modern phrase) that one makes to the families present, the spouse, and most importantly God. I also don’t think the church should offer people bread and juice as a means of reaching out (not that I am comparing communion to a wedding ceremony in terms of religious importance or anything).
I wonder if churches that marry non-religious persons choose not to marry homosexual couples. That is perhaps another thread … but I’m contemplating your idea that hosting a (perhaps) religious ceremony (wedding) for non-religoius couples is “reaching out”, or if the church building also serves for community functions, or offering wedding services is a way for churches to increase funds (not saying that’s a bad thing).
I’m all for churches reaching out to non-religious members, but I also amw ondering if we still view marriage in a church as a “religoius event”.
Don’t church leaders meet with the prospective couple for a few weeks to talk about their religious background and beliefs and their committment to marriage?
Some do. I have known ministers who would not marry the children of long-standing church members because the children did not attend church regularly.
Why would a minister oversee a marriage of non-religious people in the church building itself?
I think those that do this view it as an opportunity to reach out to a few more souls. There are certain times in life when people look to a church for help. It is those times when a church can reach out and hope to bring people back into the fold or maybe into the fold for the first time. Marriage, baptism, confirmation, death are a few.
There are certain times in life when people look to a church for help. It is those times when a church can reach out and hope to bring people back into the fold or maybe into the fold for the first time.
I guess that’s what I am wondering. Do repeated meetings take place between the couple and the minister to talk about the commitment, and the vows, and (perhaps) about God … or is any meeting between the couple and minister to deal with the logistics of the ceremony?
That’s what I am trying to arrive at in my mind is if the ceremony to non-religious people is an involved relationship between couple and minister where a legitimate “reach out” can occur or is it handled more as if the church were a business. Where the minister discusses the church fees for the ceremony, his personal fees, the procedure of the ceremony, etc.
I ask b/c it is important to me as I am thinking of a Biblical situation where Jesus was none to happy when the temple was used as a marketplace selling religoius items at inflated costs for profit. I think if the wedding ceremony and tradition are abused, or treated as a “business” (i.e., without an involved relationship and reach-out) that certain churches/ministers could be doing some rather similar to what the people in the Temple did, when Jesus was angered to the point of over-turning tables, etc.
There are many nice places for aethiests to get married icluding the county courthouse, hotel, country club, park, beach, cruise ship, etc. But you had to pick a house of worship and try to justify it with how the Rev is ok with it (yeah right) and how it was convinient for the guests and your mother in law. Kind of a farce.
No I was not thinking of just renting out the church and the minister. Any wedding should require pre-martial counseling with the minister. If a non-believing couple rejected that, then I would tell them to go find an Elvis Chapel. I was not thinking of a commercial venture, but another contact point with unbelievers.
There are many nice places for aethiests to get married icluding the county courthouse, hotel, country club, park, beach, cruise ship, etc. But you had to pick a house of worship and try to justify it with how the Rev is ok with it (yeah right) and how it was convinient for the guests and your mother in law. Kind of a farce.
Nonsense. A wedding is about more than what the bride and groom want. It takes into account everyone. I’m not trying to justify my actions to you or anyone else. I proposed at the end of May 1996, and we got married the beginning of September 1996. We weren’t going to spend our lives and our savings trying to find the perfect venue, reception site, photographer, florist, etc. The meetinghouse was nicer than any of the few commercial places we looked at. If you knew anything about UU, you wouldn’t mock the Reverend’s attitude (and we did meet with her about marriage, beyond the ceremony details). The fact that my mother-in-law might feel better if she thought there was more of a God presence by having the ceremony there, all the better.
And considering that Hurricane Fran (coincidentally the name of my previous girlfriend) came through that weekend might have made your suggestion of park and beach a bit of a loser.
I think if the wedding ceremony and tradition are abused, or treated as a “business” (i.e., without an involved relationship and reach-out) that certain churches/ministers could be doing some rather similar to what the people in the Temple did, when Jesus was angered to the point of over-turning tables, etc.
I suppose this happens sometimes. I don’t have any idea how often. I do think it is a mistake to assume that opening a church to “strangers” or non-believers is primarily a commercial act.
No I was not thinking of just renting out the church and the minister. Any wedding should require pre-martial counseling with the minister.
That’s what I was/am trying to figure out, if all that stuff takes place. And I was trying not to jump to conclusions and/or assumptions about the practice of non-religioius couples being married in a church by a religious leader. Obviously I believe it is important for the church to assert itself within the commuity and to reach out in appropriate ways, but I was concerned about the integrity.
I know for a fact that in my church (Catholic) at least one has to be Catholic to be married by a priest, and both must be to be married in the church. I can only guess a non denominational only requires one to be of faith to be married in their place of worship.
I am not religious, and didn’t want to get married in a church. Why would I?