Civil ceremony in a Chapel/Church?

barbarawright

Jagraf wrote: »

I don't see why it should be flamed, to be honest, it makes perfect sense. I'm not sure why anyone would want a civil service in a church.

It might be the cheapest venue of the right size locally I guess.

Jagraf

barbarawright wrote: »

It might be the cheapest venue of the right size locally I guess.

Too true. Very cheap.

onlyroz

Jagraf wrote: »

I'm not sure why anyone would want a civil service in a church.

From a secular point of view the requirements for a wedding venue are that it is in the right location, has a large enough capacity, and is preferably attractive and available for the right price. If it being a place of worship doesn't hold any particular significance then to a non-believer a church is as good as any other similar-sized venue.

It's true that I don't understand anything about consecrated ground or sacraments, and I don't really know the difference between the words spoken at a civil and church ceremony (I've been to both and from my point of view there wasn't much difference) - but I don't really see why the church wouldn't view this as a commercial opportunity with the potential to increase membership.

Anyway, I can see I'm on my own here...

onlyroz

thorsoak wrote: »

Perhaps the reason that Christians are "outraged" at the thought of civil ceremonies in a church is that, to Christians, marriage is a sacrament and that's why the vows are taken publicly, in Church, in front of the congregation.

I don't know what a sacrament is, but a civil wedding has similar aims in that it is a public declaration of love and commitment.

Jagraf

onlyroz wrote: »

From a secular point of view the requirements for a wedding venue are that it is in the right location, has a large enough capacity, and is preferably attractive and available for the right price. If it being a place of worship doesn't hold any particular significance then to a non-believer a church is as good as any other similar-sized venue.

It's true that I don't understand anything about consecrated ground or sacraments, and I don't really know the difference between the words spoken at a civil and church ceremony (I've been to both and from my point of view there wasn't much difference) - but I don't really see why the church wouldn't view this as a commercial opportunity with the potential to increase membership.

Anyway, I can see I'm on my own here...

If someone isn't bothered or doesn't recognise that its a religious building, fair enough. but why then worry about the marriage wording? Surely if someone is happy to ignore what the building is built for, and its whole purpose, they why argue over the wording, they may as well say it all as well.

Also it won't increase membership. Why would it.

missbiggles1

onlyroz wrote: »

I don't know what a sacrament is, but a civil wedding has similar aims in that it is a public declaration of love and commitment.

This might sound a bit rude and I can only hope you don't take it the wrong way but, as you happily admit to understanding nothing of the issues involved, I can't really understand why you're arguing so strongly.:)

onlyroz

Jagraf wrote: »

If someone isn't bothered or doesn't recognise that its a religious building, fair enough. but why then worry about the marriage wording? Surely if someone is happy to ignore what the building is built for, and its whole purpose, they why argue over the wording, they may as well say it all as well.

Because most atheists or agnostics would prefer not to lie, especially when it comes down to something as important as their wedding vows.

If there were two choices: (1) Lying about belief in God and having a Christian ceremony in a church or (2) Having a secular ceremony in a church, I know which one I think is the better option for both the non-believer and the church hosting the wedding.

onlyroz

missbiggles1 wrote: »

This might sound a bit rude and I can only hope you don't take it the wrong way but, as you happily admit to understanding nothing of the issues involved, I can't really understand why you're arguing so strongly.:)

Perhaps you can explain to me what is so different about a civil and a Christian wedding ceremony, and what is so abhorrent about the former.

tea_lover

onlyroz wrote: »

Perhaps you can explain to me what is so different about a civil and a Christian wedding ceremony, and what is so abhorrent about the former.

Er...the difference is that God isn't part of a civil ceremony. That's about as fundamental a difference as you can get. I'm really amazed that you can't see that.

firebird082

There is no requirement for the marrying couple to believe, or call themselves Christian to marry in their local parish church though - my understanding is that any couple is welcome to marry either in their own parish church, or at a church they have a strong connection with (either via family, or by attending themselves). But if you do it in the church, the service involves God.

We went to a friend's wedding a couple of years ago, held in the bride's parent's home church. Bride and Groom removed as much reference to God from the service as possible (total non-believers), and had the service there only for the bride's mother! Bit crazy if you ask me, but there you go. The church obviously didn't have a problem with it however...