From a pastor/netfriend:

So many church people (particularly, I have observed, those from Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox traditions, but by no means limited to them) have a concept of marriage that assumes the church — read *my* church in each instance — has some sort of a leasehold on marriage.

Having established the leasehold (in their own mind) they then go on to define many more features of marriage, including what reasons are acceptable for getting married and what particular understanding of marriage is permitted.

Historically, however, the church didn’t really get into the marriage business until very late in the picture. Marriage was a civil matter and was usually celebrated (if that is the right word in this context) by the senior civil official available, or his/her representative. It might have been the head of the village, the chief of the clan or, in more modern times, the captain of a ship.

The church got into the act because of two factors. Firstly, thanks to Constantine and his “civilising” of Christianity (meaning that he made it congruent with civil authority), priests became de facto representatives of the Emperor. Secondly, in many towns and villages during the early years of the rennaisance, the village priest was possibly the only person around who could read and write and so could record the event for the civil authorities to know about it. For many centuries, marriages were celebrated (performed?)

in the market place rather than in the church, except that the place that was most convenient for both the couple and the celebrant was on the steps of the church. I imagine the first marriage inside the church took place because of the weather, not because of theological considerations!

But, having got marriages into the church, the church authorities were smart enough to corner the market and to “sanctify” the matter. Having done that, well, we write the rules, don’t we?

Interestingly, the old idea of the priest being a representative of the Emperor has not been forgotten. Although I was nominated by my denomination, my authorisation as a marriage celebrant is given by the Commonwealth of Australia and all the marriage stationery bears the emblem of that Emperor. If it comes to that, the idea of the clergy being the appropriate person to celebrate marriages probably hearkens back to some vague idea that the priest is the (spiritual) head of the village. I would like to think we have come along a bit in our thinking since the medieval days but I suspect many church people still hold on to the idea of having cornered the market.

Accordingly, whilst I am very happy to fulfill the role of marriage celebrant for those couples who wish to see their marriage as having a distinctly Christian significance (not necessarily sharing my own particular theology), I encourage those who just want to “get hitched” for reasons that are entirely secular (and who hold no particular allegiance to the Christian church) to have a civil ceremony. We (meaning the church) don’t have any sort of franchise rights on marriage. I can’t say I know a lot of civil celebrants personally, but I have been impressed with the quality of the work of those I do know.

For those couples who do want me to officiate, I take the matter seriously. I give them a fairly thorough preparation (three or four sessions of 90-120 minutes each, usually plus a rehearsal, spread over however long I am given from when they hand me the Notice of Intention) and encourage them to consider a lot more than how many bridesmaids they are going to have and what colour the flowers will be.

As a side-comment, when I conduct the ceremony, I stick very close to the order in Uniting in Worship. I gather this is fairly unusual as I frequently have guests at a wedding comment on “what a lovely/unusual/wonderful service that was — I’ve never heard one like that before!” Makes me wonder what sort of order some of my colleagues are using these days!