In yesterday’s Times I read this article that noted a new trend when it comes to marriages. Namely, one in seven couples are now separating the legal wedding from the main celebration. As I judge it, this is one of those welcome cultural moves that could lead to something more hepful and biblical.

I have written before about the nature of weddings. Several years ago I wrote this and, shortly after, I wrote this. I would encourage you to read both of them to hear the fullness of the case on which the rest of this post is built. But if you can’t be bothered, those posts make the case that churches ought not to conduct marriages at all; they should be (at least legally) a matter solely for the state. I argued in practice for something like the French or Dutch model of marriage in which a legal wedding is conducted first before any later religious (or non-religious) celebration takes place with no legal standing some time after.

Which brings me to the article in The Times. It seems the culture is already – albeit for altogether different reasons – beginning to move in this direction. It is becoming incresingly common for people to split the legal wedding ceremony from the later celebration. If this becomes the norm, we will already have a practice that would lend itself to a separation of legal commitment and wedding celebration.

Notably, in The Times article, one couple insisted they didn’t want to wait to get married but they also had very particular views on how they wanted to celebrate. As such, they got married in a small family ceremony and then, ten months later, had their bigger celebration. Another couple felt they would not enjoy the celebration if everything was on the same day. They decided to have a small legal ceremony on one day with a wedding celebration later that they would enjoy more fully because there is no legal standing. These practices are apparently becoming much more common.

From a Christian perspective, I think this is a cultural move to be welcomed. It ultimately means, in line with the articles I linked to earlier (do read them as this will make much more sense) the church can get out of the wedding game altogether. If more and more people are having civil ceremonies first, there is no need for churches to conduct marriages at all. We can encourage people to have a civil ceremony cheaply and quickly and suggest that the church will do no legal ceremony at all. Instead, once people have married legally, we can offer them a non-legal religious ceremony celebrating the marriage and giving thanks to God for it and seeking his blessing upon the married couple.

This, in my view, does several things at once. First, it stops the church getting drawn away from gospel work into the perpetual wedding business. Despite protestations, I am yet to be convinced by the gospel value of such services. In fact, all the evidence we have (the Talking Jesus research provides the stats if you wish to look it up) is that almost nobody who becomes a Christian cites things like wedding and funeral services as significant in their coming to faith. Those who insist these things are a wonderful gospel opportunity and are not taking us away from more fruitful gospel work have to provide some evidence that such things have been really valuable for the kingdom. I am yet to see any such evidence.

Second, and more importantly, I think this sends the right and proper message about marriage. Marriage is a social good and a societal rite, it is not the preserve of the church.  Marriage is not marriage when it is recognised by the church; it is marriage when it is recognised by the appropriate cultural authorities. In our case, this amounts to the state. When churches conduct marriages, as Don Carson notes, they are functioning less as gospel churches and more as agents of the state. I think we muddy the waters when we do this. We can end up denigrating non-church weddings in an entirely unwarranted way and we can give the impression that marriage is a preserve of the church when it really isn’t.

Third, splitting the legal ceremony from the non-legal celebration puts the emphasis in the right place. The legal and proper affirmation that a marriage has taken place is given clearly to the state. The celebration by the church that marriage is good and, particularly, that a Christian marriage based on the gospel is a particular Christian good is more clearly observed and served.

I argued in those earlier articles that I recognised culturally we were unlikely to win the argument that churches should keep out of marriage. However, as more and more people end up splitting the legal ceremony from the non-legal celebration (or for a couple who don’t want a big party to eschew a specific celebration altogether), things may be changing. It may be the case that the culture is already moving in this direction on weddings and opening the door to the church being given cultural permission to do what would be more clearly biblical and helpful. I think we should welcome it and take the opportuntiy.