reality or ceremony?

[Sarah Smith]

There was a wedding in our family this past week. The one's marrying hold mostly, but not entirely, to a more Quaker (early) form of the faith.

It made for some uniqueness since they chose to have a minister preside but made it clear the minister was only making public and visible a spiritual and inward reality in their lives.

Which led to lots of good talking and sharing both during the ceremony and during the reception.

Part of Quaker teachings (some groups) posits that reality is far more important than ceremony.

Examples would be: the person who is truly knowledgeable and educated may not be the person with the most degrees. (Not slamming the degrees at all. Just saying more than one way to get an education, and that not all degrees are indication that the education "took.")

Another example would be that some who marry for life do forego the license and the officiant, while some who get the right piece of paper and the right ceremony practice serial monogamy at best, and often not even that.

Or that some who legally adopt children do not go on to function as the child's parents, and some who "only" shelter or foster function as good lifetime parents.


Or that there are those who forego water baptism and the communion rite with the elements but truly trust in Christ and walk in close fellowship and obedience to Him.
Which led to a good rousing laughing discussion question:

Given that one can have both the rites and ceremonies and the real deal, if you could only choose EITHER doing all the rites and legallities OR having the real, albeit not legal, marriage/education/adoption etc, which would be a better choice?

Your thoughts?

[Craig Laughlin]

This is a false dichotomy. No reasonable person would argue that the piece of paper was the marriage, nor do we argue in our tradition that baptism is itself saving relationship with God. Like the Quakers we see these as outward signs and inward grace. (Staples) To set the sign in adversarial relationship to the reality (grace) is to misunderstand the full meaning of symbol, which itself participates in the reality. The question is, could one be more like Christ by being baptized? (skipping over that we are commanded to do so) Is one's marriage strengthened by a piece of paper? (There were lots of real marriages before contracts - we have always understood marriage as covenant) The rejection of symbol as false reality is more consistent with a Platonic world view than a Biblical or Hebrew understanding.

Side note - the adoption illustration doesn't work at all. There is great evidence that we are largely shaped by our genes. Studies of twins adopted into different families illustrate this pretty well.

I think the Quakers point is well right, we just can't push it to far or we end up in a very different place.

[Sarah Smith]

Actually, pretty much everyone agreed that it is best to have both the outward formal witness and the inward spiritual one.

The discussion went more like this, bringing up worldwide politics and history:

If you lived where you had to deny Christ and ascribe loyalty to another deity to obtain a marriage license, would you? Or would you form a marriage without legal sanction? Or stay celebate?

Obviously there are those who marry intending it for life and then find it untenable, such as to an abuser. But some who have worked where silver is sold tell us that many modern couples want no monogram because "we don't know if we will still want to be married to each other in ten years. Who knows where our companies might transfer us." Are those couples any more moral than those commonly spoken of as shacking up?

Which is more important, the outward sign or the inward grace?

No one was suggesting tossing the outward signs overboard, although a few did seem to believe unless someone officiated at a wedding it wasn't real. I might add in our state the couple can choose to marry, legally and with license, without an officiant.

[Craig Laughlin]

Actually, pretty much everyone agreed that it is best to have both the outward formal witness and the inward spiritual one.

The discussion went more like this, bringing up worldwide politics and history:

If you lived where you had to deny Christ and ascribe loyalty to another deity to obtain a marriage license, would you? Or would you form a marriage without legal sanction? Or stay celebate?

Obviously there are those who marry intending it for life and then find it untenable, such as to an abuser. But some who have worked where silver is sold tell us that many modern couples want no monogram because "we don't know if we will still want to be married to each other in ten years. Who knows where our companies might transfer us." Are those couples any more moral than those commonly spoken of as shacking up?

Which is more important, the outward sign or the inward grace?

No one was suggesting tossing the outward signs overboard, although a few did seem to believe unless someone officiated at a wedding it wasn't real. I might add in our state the couple can choose to marry, legally and with license, without an officiant.

I think they have still misunderstood.

For followers of Christ the state does not make the marriage. We certainly comply with the law to get a license but we affirm that it is the making of covenant with God and his church that makes the marriage. There certainly is no need from a theological perspective for the sanction of the state. The licensure by the state is a whole other issue not an outward sign of what has happened in them through marriage. (rings might be a better example) I could make a case here that heterosexual couples married in front of a judge merely have a civil union not a Christian marriage.

Side note - When folks come to me for a wedding I always distinguish between a civil ceremony and "Christian" marriage. One can bind two people together legally at the courthouse. To covenant bond two people together for life is a whole other thing and a much, much higher standard. Living in a state that will soon approve gay marriage I'm glad I have been making the distinction for a long time.

The second example of those not wanting to be bound together legally for the purposes of facilitating a easier escape at some later date would not qualify for Christian marriage in the first place. The license is irrelevant in that the real issues is they are not willing to vow "until we are parted by death" and therefor can not be married. (In the Christian sense of it)

To answer your question directly you have created a logical impossibility. One can not have the outward sign if the inward grace is not present. It would just be a costume. (Much like your second example) So of course the inward grace is preferred, even required over the outward sign.

[Sarah Smith]

One cannot have the outward sign if the inward grace is not present, logically?

Oh, wow, how I disagree.

Those couple looking for an escape clause are couples WITH a marriage license and often with clergy officiating. Sorry I wasn't clear there.

And surely we agree there are those who go through the ceremony of baptism who have not come to faith in Christ, and perhaps who never will. I'm thinking here of a young Lutheran I know who quite firmly rejects all concept of God. Baptized as an infant (outward sign), raised in a Christian home, but left as a teen and is an avowed atheist.

As to marriage--we were discussing British history when many of the dissenters were not allowed to wed legally unless they recanted and became again either CoE or RCC, depending on the regime. Some who have served in other countries referred to a few where only Muslims may wed legally. What should Christians in those situations do?

We are in agreement that the inward grace is preferred over the outward sign. It was one of those "out here in the strange world we live in" where some really do have to choose from column a or column b, what then discussions.

[Craig Laughlin]

One cannot have the outward sign if the inward grace is not present, logically?

Oh, wow, how I disagree.

Correct this is a logical impossibility. The outward sign is an expression of the inward grace, therefore by definition the outward sign apart from the inward grace would be fraudulent.

Those couple looking for an escape clause are couples WITH a marriage license and often with clergy officiating. Sorry I wasn't clear there.

I suspect I too was not clear. Absolutely no problem for a member of the clergy to marry a couple without the license under the circumstances you mention. The license is a product of the government not the church.

And surely we agree there are those who go through the ceremony of baptism who have not come to faith in Christ, and perhaps who never will. I'm thinking here of a young Lutheran I know who quite firmly rejects all concept of God. Baptized as an infant (outward sign), raised in a Christian home, but left as a teen and is an avowed atheist.

Back to what I said in the first part of this post. One who is not truly a follower of Christ can not be baptized. They can get a member of the clergy to say the right words and dunk (or sprinkle or pour) them in water but it is God that does the baptizing not the clergy. The ceremony is not by itself (apart from true spiritual life) baptism. They just get wet, they are not baptized. Only God can judge the heart.

As to marriage--we were discussing British history when many of the dissenters were not allowed to wed legally unless they recanted and became again either CoE or RCC, depending on the regime. Some who have served in other countries referred to a few where only Muslims may wed legally. What should Christians in those situations do?

See previous answer. After thinking about this I think I would want to say that the marriage ceremony itself is the outward sign of the inward grace of God's love between them.

We are in agreement that the inward grace is preferred over the outward sign. It was one of those "out here in the strange world we live in" where some really do have to choose from column a or column b, what then discussions.

After rereading your question I think the issue is that you have blended some things that are very different. You started your post with an Ontological (what is real) discussion about the relationship between the inner grace and the outward sign. (Great stuff to think about) The problem was that in your examples you include marriage/license, spiritual life/baptism with things like education/diploma. My much less than clear response is those are different things. Christian marriage (church) and marriage license (State) are not related Ontologically. (False dichotomy) They are not at all the same as education and diploma. (both a function of the state and not spiritual issues)

The main reason I jumped in is that it is important in Christian theology that we not separate to far the outward sign from the inward grace. We don't have to choose because both are done by God. (Which is why one can go to heaven without being literally baptized despite the Biblical mandate to do so)