In light of this week’s historic Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, it looks like conservative churches in the U.S. may be doing some fancy legal dancing in coming days. The question remains: Can the American church learn the marriage two-step?
The two-step is simple. Step one is a civil ceremony followed by step two, a blessing officiated by the faith community. In Côte d’Ivoire, a West African nation, I attended the religious ceremony for one of my students and his bride. When they arrived at the church, they had come straight from the mayor’s office where they had already been married. Now at the church, the pastor led them through a second ceremony, “in the presence of God and these witnesses,” brothers and sisters-in-Christ who added their blessing and approval in a service of holy matrimony.
Such an arrangement seemed odd to me at first since I only knew of one-step weddings. When my wife and I married in 1985, I recall the solemn words intoned by my brother, the presiding minister:
“By the authority invested in me by the State of New York, I now pronounce you husband and wife.”
On the application for the marriage license, the Reverend signed his name as the “officiant.” Practically speaking, he was acting both as an agent of the church and as an agent of the State, two roles wrapped up in a single individual. No prior ceremony at the town hall was necessary. We had merely picked up the paperwork from the town clerk and had the minister sign the forms after the ceremony at church, along with our witnesses.
But I wonder:
Has the one-step wedding joined together church and state in a kind of unholy matrimony?
As long as ministers of the Gospel are accredited by the State to perform wedding ceremonies that include a civil function, they are acting as de facto agents of the government, what one colleague of mine called a “sub-magistrate.” In this arrangement, it follows logically that the State controls the procedure including who qualifies to be married. As of June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that two men or two women have the constitutional right to be joined together in marriage. It is not far-fetched to think that pastors who have in the past performed wedding ceremonies “by the authority invested in my by the State of ______” could be pressured to perform ceremonies for all comers, whether opposite sex or same-sex.
Here’s a better way:
STEP ONE: Conservative pastors must opt out of the current system. Instead, he or she would refer inquirers to the Justice of the Peace (JOP) or his/her equivalent in a given jurisdiction. The marriage license would be issued.
STEP TWO: People of faith who desire to have their marriage blessed in the presence of God and others of their faith community can do so, whether at the church, synagogue, mosque, or other house of worship. For Christians, this is the service of holy matrimony.
Our logic is clear: We understand holy matrimony to be a rite of the church which is distinct from the civil union (wedding ceremony) performed by the magistrate. As those faithful to the Scriptures, we believe that the blessing of holy matrimony is a life-long covenant sealed before God only by a heterosexual couple, one man and one woman.
What if two men or two women who have gone through a wedding ceremony conducted by the Justice of the Peace desire a religious blessing as well? Such a couple would be free to seek out a faith community that is willing to perform this ecclesiastical rite. More churches in the U.S. now do so than before. However, since the civil and religious aspects of a wedding would have been disentangled, the prospect of a gay couple legally coercing a conservative minister to perform the ceremony would be avoided since – by opting out – no conservative pastor would any longer be accredited by the State to carry out civil marriage functions on its behalf.
The United States is a pluralistic nation. Though once there was a Christian consensus, this is no longer the case. While some Christians consider the Bible authoritative on the question of marriage, in a democratic society, its teachings cannot be imposed upon those of other faiths or no faith. On the other hand, the longstanding tradition of the one-step wedding makes us vulnerable to having the unorthodox marriage views of others imposed upon us. It is high time that we get out of the civil marriage business. It is time that we learn the marriage two-step.
Gregory Crofford 
Greg,
Great Article! The two-step marriage was done by the Early Christian Church from my understanding as limited as it is.
My question is: If a Nazarene Elder elects to remain acknowledge by the state where they reside and they see nothing wrong with same-sex unions, is there anything specifically in the Manual where they Elder can be brought up on charges as the wording in the Bood of Discipline? I do not recall any specifics.
Hello Gary, thanks for the note. Check out in the Nazarene Manual (2013-2017) paragraphs 30.2 and 536.16. Here’s part of the language from 30.2: “Ministers of the Church of the Nazarene…shall only solemnize marriages of persons having the biblical basis for marriage. Biblical marriage only exists in a relationship involving one man and one woman.”
Well said, Greg! This is exactly the situation I envisioned after reading comments on Facebook the past few days, including some posted by you. It also mirrors the experience of a colleague of mine, a native of India, who attended the wedding of a family member in India a few years ago. There were actually three weddings: the “official” one at a government office, followed by two separate religious ceremonies (one Christian and one Hindu). While multiple ceremonies can get costly and logistically complex, the general idea of separating the state marriage from the religious rite or ceremony seems simple and entirely reasonable to me, and can be described as just a clarification of the relationship that church-based “officiants” have always had with the state. I don’t see it as a loss for the church or for those who wish to be married in a church (by a priest or pastor), and it should be acceptable to the LGBT community as well, since no rights are being abrogated. Let’s hope that such reasonableness is the rule as we move forward from Friday’s ruling.
Glad to know that others like you, Lucien, see the wisdom in this course of action. Thanks for writing.
Welcome to the Netherlands. We’ve been doing the two step for ages.
I suspected you might, Hans. That’s also the case in France.
Gregory, In your conclusion you state that we live in a pluralist society. This reminds me of a Leslie Newbigin book that I read in undergrad (Point Loma), titled, “The Gospel in a Pluralist Society.” While I cannot remember much of it’s content, I can tell you that it is not obligatory to assume give civil government authority to define an important rite such as marriage. Marriage has a long history of being separate from civil union in other parts of the world and in history. We will adjust to this ever more pluralistic era in American history or else place our efforts into a rudimentary issue that will keep us from adequately addressing a more worthy issue in the future. Thus, I can see myself, and would urge others, to consider what steps to take in regard to their status as civil wedding officiants.
Thanks, Kenneth. I have that Newbigin book on my shelf but have not yet read it. I may now!