[This article was written by Tim Haile.]
For many years, there has been a running debate over whether or not it is scriptural and right to conduct weddings and funerals in buildings that are either bought, built, or rented by the Lord’s people for the purpose of serving God. In considering the right or wrong of a particular practice, the first question in our minds should always be, “Is there authority for this practice?” The Bible says, “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus…” (Colossians 3:17). If there is book, chapter, and verse authority for a practice, then the practice is right and it should be freely practiced. If biblical authority cannot be found for the practice, then it must be avoided and opposed. In this study we shall examine the arguments that are most often used in defense of conducting weddings and funerals in church buildings and we will test those arguments by God’s authoritative word. If these arguments pass that test then church buildings should be used for weddings and funerals at every opportunity. If the practice is authorized, it is just as authorized as other authorized practices. That would mean there would be just as much authority to use the building for weddings and funerals as there is to assemble for the Lord’s Supper or Bible study. If, however, these arguments prove either too much, or too little, then the practice needs to be reconsidered.
Methods By Which Authority Is Determined
God uses four different methods to tell us what He expects us to do. We sometimes learn God’s will as a result of direct command. The apostles were told to “go into all the world…” (Mark 16:15). We also learn by express statement. Jesus further said, “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved…” (Mark 16:16). We sometimes learn God’s will as a result of reading about approved behavior. This is authority that is obtained on the basis of approved examples. How do we know which day is the right day to observe the Lord’s Supper? Acts 20:7 tells us that early disciples gathered “upon the first day of the week, and Paul preached to them.” Since the apostle Paul participated in, and approved the observance of the Lord’s Supper upon the first day of the week, we know that God authorizes it. At other times, we arrive at unavoidable conclusions based upon stated premises. Truth can be discovered in this way as well. This is called a necessary inference. For example, one can confidently state that Jesus “went down into the water” to be baptized even though the Bible does not directly state that He did. I only know such based upon what I infer from what is implied from Matthew 3:16, which says, “Jesus came straightway up out of the water.” The Bible teaches that Jesus “came out of the water” by direct statement, but the Bible teaches that Jesus went down into the water by implication. One truth is just as certain as the other. One or more of these four methods must authorize everything we do religiously. If we cannot find authority for a practice on the basis of one or more of these methods then the practice is unapproved by God.
Application of These Methods
Where is the statement, command, example or implication for people to “come together” for weddings or funerals? We are commanded to come together to eat the Lord’s supper, “This do in memory of me” (1 Corinthians 11:23-24, 20). We are commanded to assemble to “teach and admonish one another” in song (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16). We are commanded to “assemble” for the purpose of spiritual growth and encouragement (Hebrews 10:24-25). These things are commanded, but where are the commands to assemble for weddings or funerals? New Testament “assembly” passages tell us the specific things that God wants us to do when we assemble. In fact, these assembly passages serve as the actual basis of our authority to buy, build, or rent a church building in the first place. Without assembly passages, we would have no authority for church buildings, period! Authority to build, buy, rent, and maintain church buildings comes only from those passages which authorize the things that are to be done in the building. Church buildings are expedients because they facilitate in the accomplishment of God’s will to do the things that God wants us to do.
I am afraid of any argument that takes the thing that is authorized (”teaching” in this instance) and turns it into the authority for an entirely different and additional practice. The argument turns that which is authorized into that which authorizes! By this reasoning, the floodgates are opened wide, providing justification for any practice that is, in itself, both legal and wholesome. We would be forced to accept the use of church facilities for things like:
- Secular Education (provided that the Bible is taught)
- Child Day Care (provided that the Bible is taught)
- Boy Scout Meetings (provided that the Bible is taught)
- Social Meals / Fellowship-Halls (provided that the Bible is taught)
- Exercise and Workouts (provided that the Bible is taught)
- Entertainment and Recreation (provided that the Bible is taught)
- Voter Registration, Polling and other Government Functions (provided that the Bible is taught – I cite this last example because some defend the use of the church building for weddings on the basis that marriage is a divine institution. Well, so is civil government! Does Romans 13:1-4 therefore authorize the use of church buildings for punishing evil-doers? Electrocution and gas chambers? Jailing? Government offices?)
Most people defend the practice of weddings and funerals in the building on the grounds that the Bible is taught. I agree that funerals and weddings provide us with a wonderful opportunity to teach saints and sinners, and I try to take advantage of these opportunities when possible, but are weddings and funerals really the work of the church? There are a couple of things we should consider in connection with this point.
Incidentals
When weddings and funerals are conducted in the church building, why are people really there? Did they come just to hear Bible teaching on the subject of death and marriage? Did they come to hear God’s word regarding the brevity of life and there just happened to be a dead man there? Did they come to hear teaching regarding the permanency of marriage and two people just happened to be getting married at the same time? Can we honestly say that the weddings and funerals were just incidental to the occasion? A true incidental is unplanned. For example, humans tend to socialize before and after church services. This socializing is incidental to our planned purpose. That is, we did not come to the church building for the purpose of socializing (discussing secular work, hobbies, the weather, etc). We came for a God-approved reason (Lord’s Supper, singing, praying, teaching, or giving). All careful Bible students will admit that there is no authority to spend the Lord’s money on facilities having only a social purpose. Some things are merely incidental to other things. Carelessness in this area usually leads to the acceptance of a host of other unapproved social practices.
The “Expediency” Argument
Some have attempted to defend the practice of weddings and funerals in the building by calling them lawful expedients. This would place weddings in the building in the same category as the use of songbooks and pews. However, by affirming such, one is forced to say that weddings and funerals in the church building actually facilitate in the accomplishment of God’s will in the work of the local church. This makes weddings and funerals a planned and purposed work of the local church. Are weddings and funerals merely “aids” or are they separate functions? Do these belong in the same category and “classes,” “gospel meetings,” and “debates”? In order to determine such, we will have to test the substance of each practice to determine whether or not it is a stand-alone practice.
The Stand-Alone Test
Every day, throughout the world, eligible people are bound together in marriage who have no fear of God or respect for His laws. On a regular basis, absolute atheists, as well as deceived religionists, inadvertently comply with God’s marriage laws and are bound by Him in the covenant of marriage. When such eligible people comply, howbeit unwittingly, with God’s marital requirements, God binds them as one (Matthew 19:4-6). These weddings are often officiated with absolutely no references made to either God or the Bible, yet they are as bound by God as those including multiple references to both. How can this be? Can two people really be bound together by God when they “know not God”? The answer is yes. Some of those converted from the Corinthian culture had been guilty of “adultery” (1 Corinthians 6:9), yet they repented. Obviously, God had bound the marriages of these former pagans else they could not have been guilty of adultery by subsequent remarriages! Herod and Herodias had no right to be married to each other, and John pointed this out to them (Mark 6:18). Obviously, their original vows bound them, though they had no regard for God or His word. This proves that divinely recognized weddings occur even in the absence of any Bible teaching or references to God’s name.
The flip side of this is also true. It is also possible for one to teach everything the Bible has to say about marriage and the home and still not have a wedding. Bible teaching about marriage is entirely separate from the wedding ceremony. Though Bible teaching can be done at a wedding ceremony, the two are not necessarily tied together. The fact that we do often join the two does not change the fact that a wedding is a stand-alone event. It is the business of the church to teach the Bible, but it is not the business of the church to celebrate social and cultural customs and administer the legal requirements of civil law.
The other problem I see with the practice is that the expediency argument (opportunity to teach) would demand that we have as many weddings and funerals in church facilities as possible! Since we all admit that weddings and funerals are great opportunities to teach, and since it is the church’s duty to teach (1 Thessalonians 1:8), one would have to say that churches should accept every opportunity that comes along to conduct funerals and weddings in the building. If not, why not? Those who defend the practice of weddings and funerals in the building on the basis of teaching opportunities would be forced to say that churches should do all that they can to host these events. They should announce and advertise that their building may freely be used to conduct such services. Area newspapers and radio stations could be used to make such announcements. If the use of the church building for weddings and funerals is defended on the grounds that these events are great teaching opportunities, then we should do everything possible to encourage as many people as we can, to have their weddings and funerals in the church building. Am I wrong in my conclusions?
Weddings Are Social Events
Weddings are social ceremonies that incorporate the respective social and cultural traditions of their particular place and time. The very actions and teachings of Jesus that are recorded in the New Testament emphasize this fact. Though the real point of emphasis is the manifestation of Jesus’ divine glory, John 2:1-11 tells us about a wedding in Cana of Galilee that Jesus participated in. Both verses 1 and 2 tell us that this was a marriage, yet the following verses tell us that feasting and drinking were a part of the ceremony. Jesus clearly approved of this entire ceremony, for He assisted in its success. Some have attempted to defend the use of the church building for weddings by appealing to this passage. Are the proponents of such an argument prepared to accept the logical consequence of their position? If so, they must accept that since feasting was also involved in this wedding, and since Jesus approved of this feasting, then it should be acceptable for churches to house all aspects of the entire wedding event. In keeping with current customs, this would include such things as a reception, lighting of candles, dropping of rose petals, elegant clothing, singing of non-spiritual songs by either individuals or groups (not congregational), singing of songs with instrumental accompaniment, taped music, formalities: such as standing in honor of the bride and clapping in celebration of the new marriage. In the wedding that Jesus participated in, any or all of these things could have been done. May they be done in the church building?
Jesus emphasized the social nature of weddings also in Matthew 25:1-13 in the parable of the ten bride’s maids. The Lord’s argument centers on the use of oil lamps in the actual marriage ceremony. Five of the maids were foolish because of their failure to be prepared with plenty of lamp oil. Due to their preparedness, the other virgins were considered wise. It is obvious that, depending upon the respective time and culture, various customs and practices are connected with the marriage ceremony.
In Matthew 22:1-14, Jesus tells the parable of the king’s wedding feast. Choice animals were killed and prepared and special provisions were made for those who would attend. Special emphasis must be placed upon the fact that people were invited to this event, for verse 14 makes comparison to those who are called by the gospel. It is still a practice today for people to be “invited” to marriage ceremonies. According to Jesus, this was what was done in the first century, and this is generally what is done today. Question – when church buildings are used for weddings, as is done in many places today, why are the people there? What were they invited to witness or participate in? In the Lord’s day, they were invited to participate in large, very social get-togethers.
Weddings in the Bible involved more than God’s binding two people together as one flesh. Bible weddings always involved eating, drinking, merry-making and celebrating. Weddings (not God’s binding in marriage, but wedding ceremonies) are fundamentally non-religious in nature.
Great lessons contained I this writing. Thanks
Bobby