As Sarah and I were driving home this past Sunday from my sister-in-law’s wedding, we were discussing the nature of marriage. I think the conversation came up because Bethany and Mike had a mini communion service in the middle of the ceremony (for just the two of them), and I had a knee-jerk “THAT’S CATHOLIC!!!” reaction.

Of course, a Roman Catholic wedding will almost always serve the Eucharist, since, in the RC church, marriage is a sacrament and must be performed during a mass. In the few Protestant weddings I’ve attended, the service isn’t considered a “worship service”, nor are those attending considered a “congregation”, so communion hasn’t been served. This was the first non-Catholic wedding I’ve seen where they’ve had any sort of a communion service, limited as it was to the two getting married.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 24, section 3, articulately explains the context of the Lord’s Supper, and limiting it’s rightful place to the worship service.

The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to declare his word of institution to the people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation.

So, it got me thinking… why do most Protestant weddings (at least the one’s I’ve attended) appear to be worship services without the sacraments? Most weddings are officiated by a pastor, who gives a mini-sermon to the marrying couple. There is a ceremony, and the pastor pronounces the couple married. But why is that?

In recent years, there seems to be a noticable shift in the authority of marriage from the ecclesiastical to the civil. The fact that this has not always been the case is evidenced in a post on Jonathan Barlow‘s blog, where he quotes the president of Yale University in 1795.

“… let me solemnly warn you, that if you intend to accomplish anything, if you mean not to labour in vain and to spend your strength for nought, you must take your side … Will you teach your children that death is an eternal sleap (rather than union with God and loved ones in heaven)? that the end sanctifies the means? that moral obligation is a dream? Religion (biblical truth) a farce? and your Savior the spurious offspring of pollution (rather than of a virgin birth)? Will you send your daughters abroad in the attire of a female Greek (with a gown cut so low as to expose half her breasts)? … Will you make marriage the mockery of a register’s office (in a civil ceremony)? … Will you burn your bibles? Will you crucify your Redeemer? Will you deny your God?” (emphasis mine)

I don’t see any justification for marriage to be either a civil or religious ceremony. The only religious part of the ceremony should be the oaths made by the couple, as the only lawful oaths are those solemnly made before God. Against, quoting the Westminster Confession, chapter 22, section 1

A lawful oath is a part of religious worship, wherein upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth or promiseth; and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth.

Now, I’m not quite sure I agree that an oath should exclusively be part of a religious worship, although that could be the justification for turning a wedding into a worship service, nor am I even sure that my interpretation of the WCF is correct, as one would need to turn a civil trial (where oaths are lawful) into a worship service every time a new witness takes the stand. But I digress.

My brother and sister-in-law were married before a judge, and no one would question whether they are married. If a couple came to church and said, “We were married in a church in front of witnesses, but have no marriage certificate”, we may encourage them to get one, but we wouldn’t accuse them of fornication. So, what is needed for a couple to be “married”? As I see it, marriage is a covenant between two people before God in front of witnesses, to devote themselves to one other. It is mutual oath that can be affirmed by others. I can see no reason to add any more elements than this.