One pastor's preference to be in the blessing business

By the Rev. Kim Latterell, Creator Lutheran Church of Bonney Lake, creatorpastor@comcast.net

Maybe it’s time for churches to get out of the wedding business. While I’ve enjoyed being a part of that special day for couples for over 30 years as their pastor, I would rather have every couple complete all the legal work necessary for publicly recognized relationships ahead of time. In short, I’d rather they first get legally married before a justice of the peace and then come to the church for a special celebration and blessing among friends and the community of faith. I would be content for the state to handle all the legal requirements that support marriage and the protection of partners and family while allowing pastors, priests and rabbis the opportunity to focus on marriage preparation and the celebration of the couple’s promises to each other before family and God. I prefer to be in the blessing business.

Such a change, I suspect, would be welcomed by many pastors who feel pressed at times to perform weddings for couples with little faith or connection to any faith community but who want "the traditional wedding."

It would allow the state to uphold constitutional rights of every citizen (thus allowing for a variety of marital expressions) while allowing individual faith communities the opportunity to be selective in whom they choose to offer "God’s blessing" on this new relationship. Religious communities that support the right of all adult people to marry as they choose, can offer blessing upon those relationships, while those who define marriage more narrowly are free to bless only those marriages that fit with their faith perspective.

At its root, irrespective of either the state or the church, marriage is built on the promises shared between two people as they commit themselves wholeheartedly to one another for a lifetime of love and care. The state has a vested interest in marriage as a foundational social and economic relationship for stable community life. The church has a vested interest in marriage as a significant means for the protection and support of spouse and children as they seek to create a loving and safe home. Restrictions on the race, gender, sexual orientation, age (as adults), social status and religious differences need to play no part in defining whose relationship is legally recognized and protected.

Yet individual faith communities would retain latitude in which ones they choose to "bless."

At weddings in which I officiate, I appreciate that my role no longer declares, "I pronounce you man and wife" (especially since my words can’t change gender!), nor, "I pronounce you husband and wife." Rather, after the couple has exchanged their vows, my role is to declare simply, "By the promises made before God, family and friends, (name) and (name) have bound themselves to one another in marriage." It seems to me that the words "have bound themselves to one another" are what truly define any and every marriage made under heaven. I’m quite content to let the state legalize those vows, and willing to let faith communities choose whether or not to speak a God-blessing upon those promises, though I suspect in the end, God retains the right to bless whomever God so chooses, independent of our limited views, prejudices and practices.