Alright Texags, can't believe I'm fielding opinions on this but here we go.

I was asked to officiate one of my best friends wedding. He was raised Christian, doesn't attend church or take the claims seriously now. She's Jewish, and is in the same boat about her faith. So they've asked me as I've been a religious sounding board for over a decade to my buddy here.

So the conundrum. It's easy to get 'ordained' online through either a universalists or nondenominational church. But it begs the question about who has the authority to marry. Of course the state's view is just paperwork. But the religious authority. Even by my own heathen Protestant churches standards, I couldn't marry someone as I am not a minister within the church, nor have a masters of divinity.

So what say you Texags. Am I overthinking it? Go get ordained online and celebrate with friends, as they weren't going to get married in a church anyway. Don't do it as I don't serve as a minister and I don't have a valid claim to the authority to marry?

[queue debate about apostolic succession in 3..2..1]

I am certainly not an expert, but what scripture would prevent you from officiating the wedding?

This may not be the answer you are looking for, but ask God to guide you to the correct decision through the Holy Spirit. Pray about it. Don't listen to anyone here, including me.

Don't overthink it, it's no different than participating in a Muslim or Hindu wedding. The requirements and rituals are totally different and have nothing to do with your church.

The day isn't about you.

Go online for 30s, get ordained and then officiate the wedding. Encourage them to have the decency to have an open bar.

I would respectfully decline.

I guess the real question is how you would choose to administer the vows. If you think through that I would guess you'd get your answer; "by the power invested in me, I hearby…".

A JP can do a non-religious ceremony, so no issue there if you do the paperwork properly of course, but I do think all great marriages involve a sacred vow and some agreement/respect for God, so I'd be weary myself of doing it. Most people do need/benefit from good counseling prior to being married, imho, and I think that is one of the invaluable things some/many pastors get right, whether RCC, Protestant etc.

powerbelly said:

---

I would respectfully decline.

---

I land here too. With a sacramental view of reality, the idea of a 'secular' marriage being different from a 'religious' marriage doesn't make sense. The spiritual exists in both and all things have purpose and order to them.

I appreciate all the views shared. This one is interesting because the bible talks a ton about marriage, but there are no prescriptive marriage ceremonies in the bible. And just judging by a little bit of research last night, it seems most marriages were very small, and consisted of some formal declaration of being married, with the father of the bride "organizing" it. The catholic church didn't declare themselves as arbiters of the weddings of their laity until the 1500s. Anglicans followed suit in the 1700s. So the idea that the church is directly involved, as an officiant, is relatively new. So who was presiding over marriages before 500 years ago? Was their anyone really beyond the families?

So its seems the question seems like a modern one. As the 'authority' over a wedding ceremony is something the church has recently done. The authority of marriage isn't through the man conferring it on the stage, but in the declarations made towards God by the people getting married, and then living it out accordingly. Then it begs the question, can any person confer any of the other sacraments? What qualifications are there for leading a baptism, or communion (you know what, lets skip that one), or confession? Thats the next logical question in my mind.

I guess the question is, what are the minimums for a wedding to be recognized by God as a marriage? [how very protestant of me to only think in terms of the minimums]. Not just relying on statements of, 'what is strongly recommended'. Because I strongly recommend everyone get married in a church by a leader of the church. Someone who has shepherded them before. But is that something, if lacking, invalidates or taints a wedding?

I do agree with Aggrad08 here. I'm trying to separate my beliefs from what they believe, but they are intertwined. Its not just attending or being in the ceremony of another religion. Its leading it. And also encourage an open bar.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

I appreciate all the views shared. This one is interesting because the bible talks a ton about marriage, but there are no prescriptive marriage ceremonies in the bible. And just judging by a little bit of research last night, it seems most marriages were very small, and consisted of some formal declaration of being married, with the father of the bride "organizing" it. The catholic church didn't declare themselves as arbiters of the weddings of their laity until the 1500s. Anglicans followed suit in the 1700s. So the idea that the church is directly involved, as an officiant, is relatively new. So who was presiding over marriages before 500 years ago? Was their anyone really beyond the families?

So its seems the question seems like a modern one. As the 'authority' over a wedding ceremony is something the church has recently done. The authority of marriage isn't through the man conferring it on the stage, but in the declarations made towards God by the people getting married, and then living it out accordingly. Then it begs the question, can any person confer any of the other sacraments? What qualifications are there for leading a baptism, or communion (you know what, lets skip that one), or confession? Thats the next logical question in my mind.

I guess the question is, what are the minimums for a wedding to be recognized by God as a marriage? [how very protestant of me to only think in terms of the minimums]. Not just relying on statements of, 'what is strongly recommended'. Because I strongly recommend everyone get married in a church by a leader of the church. Someone who has shepherded them before. But is that something, if lacking, invalidates or taints a wedding?

I do agree with Aggrad08 here. I'm trying to separate my beliefs from what they believe, but they are intertwined. Its not just attending or being in the ceremony of another religion. Its leading it. And also encourage an open bar.

---

This entire post is Protestant: you could have confessed it after the second sentence, or the last paragraph, and everywhere in between really.

If you're a materialist and you think your belief about a thing has no impact on the reality of a thing or how you interact with it, why does it matter what you do?

However if you have reservations about it and they know your beliefs, they probably won't be offended if you politely decline (unless you're theologically liberal but just asking about it here inclines me to believe you aren't).

They caught me at a weird time. If this was a few years ago I would have easily said yes, signed up online, and done it without thinking twice. Nowadays I take these claims way more seriously as I ask questions about church authority on the regular here.

I was told by someone who seemed to know the legal aspect of this and he said in Texas you don't even need to be ordained to sign the appropriate paperwork to file.

From a spiritual aspect, given her Jewish background, I recommend getting Zola Levitts Christian Love Story booklet and pulling something out of there.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

They caught me at a weird time. If this was a few years ago I would have easily said yes, signed up online, and done it without thinking twice. Nowadays I take these claims way more seriously as I ask questions about church authority on the regular here.

---

Perhaps we need to ask more than just the basic Protestant questions then. We can ask what people did in the Bible but we rarely explore the why or to what end contemporary custom evolved. Even upon finding it isn't prescribed in the Bible we come up short with engaging what the Bible actually is (it's not a how to manual for all things or exhaustive historical document of details). Structures evolve with society but that doesn't make them 'bad' by default. Tradition, ritual, and custom form us in good ways too. I'm not looking to launch into contemporary theological debates with this; suffice it to say that historical practice evolves out of many things.

Good luck in your search for an answer both to this and the fullness of your own belief. God bless your friends for choosing marriage and may it conform them more to His image and His purpose.

https://anabaptistworld.org/marriage-ceremonies-bible/

And obviously there was an "open bar" at Cana.

It seems "weddings" were not really through the church but contractually through families.

Rich families had feasts and parties. With booze.

Poor people just moved in with each other with the parents blessings. But marriage back then was not so much about "love" but about producing children and saving females from poverty.

Perhaps this is a place where religion is a hindrance to good rather than a boost. Two people that love each other and want to be together forever have asked a mutual friend to participate in a ceremony that will signify their commitment to each other, and rather than celebrating this, there are folks that would say no because of a religious feeling. Makes no sense to me.

schmendeler said:

---

Perhaps this is a place where religion is a hindrance to good rather than a boost. Two people that love each other and want to be together forever have asked a mutual friend to participate in a ceremony that will signify their commitment to each other, and rather than celebrating this, there are folks that would say no because of a religious feeling. Makes no sense to me.

---

Here is what Texas says:

Sec. 2.202. PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT CEREMONY. (a) The following persons are authorized to conduct a marriage ceremony:
(1) a licensed or ordained Christian minister or priest;
(2) a Jewish rabbi;
(3) a person who is an officer of a religious organization and who is authorized by the organization to conduct a marriage ceremony;
(4) a justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of criminal appeals, justice of the courts of appeals, judge of the district, county, and probate courts, judge of the county courts at law, judge of the courts of domestic relations, judge of the juvenile courts, retired justice or judge of those courts, justice of the peace, retired justice of the peace, judge of a municipal court, retired judge of a municipal court, associate judge of a statutory probate court, retired associate judge of a statutory probate court, associate judge of a county court at law, retired associate judge of a county court at law, or judge or magistrate of a federal court of this state; and
(5) a retired judge or magistrate of a federal court of this state.


I am none of those, and getting ordained by a church that I don't agree with is a non-starter.

I understand. I think it's a shame.

schmendeler said:

---

Perhaps this is a place where religion is a hindrance to good rather than a boost. Two people that love each other and want to be together forever have asked a mutual friend to participate in a ceremony that will signify their commitment to each other, and rather than celebrating this, there are folks that would say no because of a religious feeling. Makes no sense to me.

---

Did you really ask why people with sincere beliefs won't just be insincere about them because you don't their beliefs are real/significant?

I don't believe I asked a question.

schmendeler said:

---

I understand. I think it's a shame.

---

I don't think its a shame. I enjoy hearing other people's opinions on this. Powerbelly has a really strong point. The online ordinations are just work arounds, but they still require owning up to being a member of that christian group. And if that christian group has incompatible beliefs then its a nonstarter. And that could go for any topic. And I respect that their convictions run so deep they could tell one of their best friends politely no.

The more 'morality is upstream of law' viewpoint is that Texas as a state dictating requirements don't reflect the history of officiating weddings. Furthermore, the idea of officiating a wedding hasn't always been a thing anyway. So what power does a state have here? If its just amounts to paperwork, then just fill out the paperwork.

The top level question is does a church even have the authority to stand between a marriage? Is it a ceremony approved and performed solely by the church, or is it a ceremony solely within the control of those partaking? [King Henry the VIII has entered the chat]. That question might be a little too big for 8 people who want me to preside over their ceremony.

schmendeler said:

---

I don't believe I asked a question.

---

I thought it was nicer to attribute one than tagging you with a "dear diary" response.

You do you. I was sharing my thoughts on this topic.

schmendeler said:

---

You do you. I was sharing my thoughts on this topic.

---

For not asking a question you sure seem to seeking engagement nonetheless.

I posted once (1) and have been replied to 5 (five) times. Should I just ignore those, for fear of being labeled an "engagement seeker?"

schmendeler said:

---

I posted once (1) and have been replied to 5 (five) times. Should I just ignore those, for fear of being labeled an "engagement seeker?"

---

No. Why would I label you as such?

I'm not sure why.

schmendeler said:

---

Perhaps this is a place where religion is a hindrance to good rather than a boost.

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

You do you. I was sharing my thoughts on this topic.

---

For not asking a question you sure seem to seeking engagement nonetheless.

---

Lmao, what a weird post, you're replying directly to him, at one point suggesting his post should be tagged with "dear diary", and then questioning the fact that he's replying to you?

DizzyStarship said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

You do you. I was sharing my thoughts on this topic.

---

For not asking a question you sure seem to seeking engagement nonetheless.

---

Lmao, what a weird post, you're replying directly to him, at one point suggesting his post should be tagged with "dear diary", and then questioning the fact that he's replying to you?

---

It's odd that someone would come to a forum to shout into the void ("I didn't ask a question"). You can question something ("perhaps religion is a hindrance") without asking an explicit question (and because it's a forum people respond). Not hard to follow.

I will be curious what OP ultimately does. Please keep us updated unlike the other threads where people post and never follow up.

Following up with my actual answer would be foolish. Its like posting your home renovation photos online. Someone is always gonna tell you how you did it wrong. Why not just take the easy route and avoid scrutiny.

powerbelly said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

Perhaps this is a place where religion is a hindrance to good rather than a boost. Two people that love each other and want to be together forever have asked a mutual friend to participate in a ceremony that will signify their commitment to each other, and rather than celebrating this, there are folks that would say no because of a religious feeling. Makes no sense to me.

---

Here is what Texas says:

Sec. 2.202. PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT CEREMONY. (a) The following persons are authorized to conduct a marriage ceremony:
(1) a licensed or ordained Christian minister or priest;
(2) a Jewish rabbi;
(3) a person who is an officer of a religious organization and who is authorized by the organization to conduct a marriage ceremony;
(4) a justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of criminal appeals, justice of the courts of appeals, judge of the district, county, and probate courts, judge of the county courts at law, judge of the courts of domestic relations, judge of the juvenile courts, retired justice or judge of those courts, justice of the peace, retired justice of the peace, judge of a municipal court, retired judge of a municipal court, associate judge of a statutory probate court, retired associate judge of a statutory probate court, associate judge of a county court at law, retired associate judge of a county court at law, or judge or magistrate of a federal court of this state; and
(5) a retired judge or magistrate of a federal court of this state.


I am none of those, and getting ordained by a church that I don't agree with is a non-starter.

---

3) Is the "out" for anyone.

You are the officer of your religion of your choosing and you authorize yourself to conduct marriage ceremonies. There is no state certification or list of these or application to become one of these. If they ask (but they won't) you say you are. They have no legal means to say that you are not.

AGC said:

---

shout into the void ("I didn't ask a question").

---

Quote:

---

Did you really ask why

---

Are you the void?

This is a weird thing to take a stand on, you clearly mischaracterized his initial response. The correction is hardly surprising.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Following up with my actual answer would be foolish. Its like posting your home renovation photos online. Someone is always gonna tell you how you did it wrong. Why not just take the easy route and avoid scrutiny.

---

You Unitarian ministers have been taking the easy way out for a long time!

Got it, thanks!

That was the entire point of course: the post was in passive voice in a discussion forum. I have children and family that are fluent in passive voice and 'wonder' about things they want or think all the time without actually addressing such thoughts to people.

Is there a compromise here? They can get married quietly at the Justice of the Peace before the big ceremony. You would just be the one performing the ceremony with no authority whatsoever to declare them man and wife. You're just the guy saying nice words about the couple and directing them to say their vows, etc. I've been to more than one wedding where this happened.

My wife and I were married by the JP for the first six years of the 34 years we have been married. It did occur to me at the time that this was mainly a civil ceremony and not really me standing before God and a minister saying "I do."

As my faith grew stronger, we RE-married in the RCC. Something that stuck out to me was that Jesus started off his 'signs' with the miracle at Cana. Then there is the whole aspect of heaven being like a wedding feast - so I think there is a lot of imagery from the Bible on weddings. That said, Jesus pointed out that there is no marriage in heaven. So this is really about our journey together on earth and how this is a sacred vow WE make to each other. This is why Jesus said what GOD has joined man cannot separate. Notice that he did not say what the JP has joined or any of those other folks.

My suggestion would be to have a wonderful celebration of your friends JP wedding (let them do the official paperwork) - then you can MC a fun and not official ceremony without all of the "religious" charade.

Congratulations to your friends!

Quote:

---

Then there is the whole aspect of heaven being like a wedding feast - so I think there is a lot of imagery from the Bible on weddings.

---

Chicken Dance in heaven confirmed