|
 A
brother asks, "Are weddings and funerals authorized works of a
local church?" No, they are social functions. Marriage is of God,
but church "sanction" is neither required nor suggested in
God's word. "Then," (you know what's coming) "may the
church building be used for weddings and funerals?" Yes, No, and
I'm not sure!
The
incidental use of buildings and accompaniments, use not directly
related to their intended purpose, is most subject to abuse, and has
raised soul-searching questions among brethren. There are three classes
of such usage: unavoidable, inadvertent, and deliberate: and all
originate with man and should not be used as a base for further
judgements, nor bound as matters of faith.
A
temperature-controlled shelter provides certain physical benefits to all
present; and it is impossible to avoid all social aspects of an
assembly. Removing other "violations" will involve
impracticalities. Shall we forbid children (50 yrs. or older) to sleep
on the pews? Allow no personal phone calls? No use of the water fountain
except as essential to worship? No social remarks while in the
foyer? It would tax the Soviet police force!
Deliberate
"unauthorized" use of church property may not be as diabolical
as it sounds. In times of disaster (tornado, flood, etc.) a well-built,
centrally located building may be the only shelter available to
refugees. The use is temporary, and incidental; we did not build for
that purpose; and I do not believe such use would "authorize"
anything. When in Arizona, a young couple drove many miles
|
|
to a small town where I was in a
meeting. Arriving at the close of services, they asked me to marry
them. The church building was handy, and cool, so I invited them in
and we tied the knot. In years-gone-by the building was the most
suitable place in town for the funeral of some well-known and loved
brother. Of course these examples prove nothing— but they may
illustrate, I hope, common sense.
|
But
judgement depends upon circumstances, and different
circumstances warrant different conclusion. I do not
believe the church should have to bear extra expenses for such
things, nor should they be allowed to interfere with regular
church functions. (They could not then be called
"incidentals.") Some things are
"unseemly," and some would compromise the efforts of
the church to teach truth. Today, when many churches have
embraced "fun and frolic" as "church
work," it has seemed necessary to avoid anything that
would give solace to such error. (Our reaction may have
given solace, but we tried, and God sees our heart.) Too, a
few seem to have a very erroneous (almost Roman Catholic)
concept of the "sanctity" of "church
wedding." I would not want to encourage this.
Some
feel it is better to ban all incidental uses than to have to
explain "why not" to the undesirable cases; but this
seems a coward's way out, and unjust to worthy cases. This may
be the time for a searching new look at our concepts of
"church property", "marriage ceremonies",
and all. But whatever your judgement, have patience and
charity for your brother.
|
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
