Episcopal church marriages down 66% since 2003

[Paidiske]

I'm not sure it's directly about cost. You can have a very expensive or a very modest church wedding, and a very expensive or very modest secular wedding. (I'm reminded of the bride who told the dean of the Cathedral, when asked why she wanted to get married there, "This is the only venue where my dress will fit through the door." )

But it's probably true that if someone (or their parents) is going to spend something akin to a house deposit on one event, then they expect more of it than if they're only spending hundreds. And hence we come back around to control, even though the church is not the expensive part of the affair.

 

[TomUK]

There was some research done a few years ago on marriages in the Church of England, and one statistic that really struck me was that a huge number of couples felt that the church wasn't taking their wedding as seriously as they were. (Sorry, I can't remember the actual data!). Now obviously, to certain extent that's always going to be true - obviously the people who are going to be taking the wedding most seriously is the couple who are about to be married! But i think the point was that there's been a tendency for churches to downplay the significance and power of marriage, partially because we're so panicked that people are choosing to go to registry offices etc. In order to be accessible, we've minimised the one things that made us distinct. In the midst of a significant cultural shift away from the church, I wonder to what extent what should see this as a wonderful opportunity to focus our minds about what weddings and marriage are all about. Let's not stress too much about how many people are getting married in church, and instead embrace the challenge to make the weddings of Christian couples a distinct act of witness to a world in desperate need of depth and truth.

 

[Paidiske]

There was some research done a few years ago on marriages in the Church of England, and one statistic that really struck me was that a huge number of couples felt that the church wasn't taking their wedding as seriously as they were.

That's a really interesting observation. I have noticed a creeping tendency to a kind of cynicism in some clergy; a feeling that wedding couples use us - the church and clergy - to provide their day with a sort of atmosphere, but don't particularly care for it to be an occasion of worship. I don't do a lot of weddings, so don't feel tempted to that myself, but I can sort of understand it for those clergy who work in the kinds of buildings that mean you do a couple of hundred weddings a year, many of them not for people who are in any sense church-goers.

 

[Deegie]

I don't do a ton of weddings, but a fair number. I think I have eight on the calendar for 2021 just now and will likely pick up at least one more. The majority are for non-members who either want a pretty venue for their photographs or whose parents insist on a church wedding. I suppose that is somewhat cynical, but it doesn't make me feel used. I see it more as an opportunity. I love working with these couples partly because it's a chance to spend quality time with (usually) young people and leave them with a positive impression of the church. Maybe some of them will be back to have their children baptized one day. The other reason I enjoy them is because I do a fairly intensive pre-marital counseling process and believe I leave them with increased resources as they begin their lives together. I suppose it's my way of infinitesimally lowering the divorce rate and making my community a better place.

The one thing which does depress me sometimes -- and because of that I've generally stopped asking the question unless there is a reason for it -- is when they cannot articulate why they are getting married. They've been together for years. Almost all of my couples cohabitate. Some of them already have joint bank accounts and/or own houses together. A few even have children already. So what will change after the wedding day? It's rare that a couple can provide a good answer beyond that it's a social expectation before starting a family.

But, returning to the CoE research which TomUK mentioned, I don't think any couple would walk away from my parish saying we didn't take their wedding seriously. In fact, I usually go off on a rant at some point about how important marriage is and how our "S/he doesn't make me happy" culture completely cheapens the institution. I also tend to be fairly flexible to craft a day which fits their dreams. Unity candle? Sure. Recite your own vows? I guess...after the prescribed ones. Want to incorporate Marian devotions? I think I have a BVM statuette around here somewhere. Flower petals down the aisle? *groan and mutter*

 

[Paidiske]

One interesting thing I've noticed - which may or may not be relevant to any of this - is that of the few weddings I do, I'd say about half are for Catholics where one has been married before. The Catholics make the annulment process difficult, we only require a secular divorce, and the couple end up throwing their hands in the air and deciding that Anglican is close enough.

I've recently moved from a big city to a rural area, I'll be interested to see if that pattern holds here.

 

[Deegie]

One interesting thing I've noticed - which may or may not be relevant to any of this - is that of the few weddings I do, I'd say about half are for Catholics where one has been married before.

This has been my experience as well. Definitely not half but usually at least one a year. And since they are denied Communion by their home church afterwards (or at least are supposed to be), some of them end up either joining the Episcopal Church or at least becoming regular visitors.

 

[Albion]

One interesting thing I've noticed - which may or may not be relevant to any of this - is that of the few weddings I do, I'd say about half are for Catholics where one has been married before.

A lot of other priests probably have had the same experience, I'm thinking.

The Catholics make the annulment process difficult, we only require a secular divorce, and the couple end up throwing their hands in the air and deciding that Anglican is close enough.

About that, I wonder if the Australian situation and the American one are similar...or not. The annulment process in the RCC here is considered to be rather easy, if expensive. Pay the $800 (or so) paperwork fee and the rest of the process is fairly cut and dried.

A couple of meetings and alleging that one of the reasons acceptable to the Church for divorce applies, and that's about it. The other spouse, even if Catholic, is not permitted to be part of the process, so there's not going to be any back and forth debating. Tens of thousands of such annulments are granted annually.

 

[Paidiske]

About that, I wonder if the Australian situation and the American one are similar...or not. The annulment process in the RCC here is considered to be rather easy, if expensive. Pay the $800 (or so) paperwork fee and the rest of the process is fairly cut and dried.

A couple of meetings and alleging that one of the reasons acceptable to the Church for divorce applies, and that's about it. The other spouse, even if Catholic, is not permitted to be part of the process, so there's not going to be any back and forth debating. Tens of thousands of such annulments are granted annually.

From what I hear from these couples, it sounds like it's much more drawn out. Waiting for years in bureaucratic red tape, being expected to supply proof (allegation is not enough) and so on. It sounds as if the default here is to decline a request for annulment unless overwhelming reason to grant it is shown.

Now, that said, I have no inside knowledge. I'm just going by what I've heard from folks sitting in my office!

 

[Albion]

From what I hear from these couples, it sounds like it's much more drawn out. Waiting for years in bureaucratic red tape, being expected to supply proof (allegation is not enough) and so on. It sounds as if the default here is to decline a request for annulment unless overwhelming reason to grant it is shown.

Now, that said, I have no inside knowledge. I'm just going by what I've heard from folks sitting in my office!

Hmmm. I am thinking that one of two answers may account for what you report. Either the reason for Americans to be sitting in your office in Australia explains the reason that what is usual didn't apply in their case, or else, the church has tightened up its procedures since this basic annulment process was initiated by the church around 1970.

I had friends and co-workers then who explained the situation they were going through, the cost, and the exclusion of the party who was being accused by the other spouse of ruining the marriage. At the time, literally tens of thousands of annulments were being granted by the church that allowed almost none earlier. That figure, last I looked, has declined gradually, which may indicate some tightening up of the process after complaints became common.

A lot of the issues are covered in this report:

Annulment nation – Catholic World Report

 

[Paidiske]

Oh, no, they're not Americans. They're local Catholics.

 

[East of Eden]

Yeah, no. As someone in the cultural west, but outside America and England, I call tosh. GAFCON aren't carrying the banner for anything here; they are despised for their destructive divisiveness and their attempts to undermine the order and unity of the global communion.

Or could it just be the revisionists with their pan-sexual theology are undermining the order and unity of the global communion? The vast majority of the Anglican Communion are orthodox Bible believers, there are more Anglicans in church in Nigeria on a Sunday than in the US, the UK and Canada combined.

ECUSA has lost 40% of it's members since 1980 in the context of a rising US population.

 

[Paidiske]

Or could it just be the revisionists with their pan-sexual theology are undermining the order and unity of the global communion?

The question is, when we disagree, how do we go about working through that disagreement? GAFCON is doing that in a way which undermines global Anglican structures. And it is that, more than the issue on which we disagree, which causes them to be viewed so negatively here.

We may disagree with some folks in America (or wherever) but that doesn't give us the right to go and set up parallel structures, encourage schismatic movements, and so on.

 

[Padres1969]

Story here.

I've been saying it for years -- liberals can get woke humanism pure from the culture. They don't need a watered-down version from the church. At this rate TEC and CofE will be moribund within a decade or two. They may stagger on as pension and real-estate trusts, but will cease to be part of the actual church militant.

The heart and center of gravity for global Anglicanism long ago shifted to Africa. GAFCON and ACNA will carry the banner in the west, but the days when Anglicans looked to Canterbury for guidance are over.

Among other factors too, not everyone gets a church wedding anymore. I'm Episcopalian but I've never married in the church. I doubt I'm unique in that respect. And as the first response said, I'd like to see comparable numbers in the west across all denominations, and even religions. I bet you'll see similar trends across the board from Catholics to Evangelicals to Orthodox.

 

[Padres1969]

Story here.

I've been saying it for years -- liberals can get woke humanism pure from the culture. They don't need a watered-down version from the church. At this rate TEC and CofE will be moribund within a decade or two. They may stagger on as pension and real-estate trusts, but will cease to be part of the actual church militant.

The heart and center of gravity for global Anglicanism long ago shifted to Africa. GAFCON and ACNA will carry the banner in the west, but the days when Anglicans looked to Canterbury for guidance are over.

Well the US marriage rate is the lowest it's been in the history of it being measured. Between that and the reduction of the overall number of Episcopalians due to the schisms, and the declining religiousity of the American public, I'm not sure this really qualifies as surprising. The only reason GAFCON hasn't suffered that is that Africa is behind the west in having those trends hit them as they're still having more kids, more marriages, etc... Give them 50 years.

 

[VincentIII]

I don't know about the rest of the Protestant Christian world, but Anglicanism seems to have moved away from the idea of marriage as a sacrament a long time ago.

What I was taught in college is that the Christian west has long understood marriage as something formed by the free consent of both people, whether that consent occurred in an explicitly Christian context or not. Sometimes that free consent is accompanied by civil documentation, and sometimes (as by the Catholics) it is regarded as a sacrament, but fundamentally and predating either understanding, it's the willing consent of the couple that is the core.

Does Mark 10:8-9 support the idea of marriage as a sacrament?

I'm not arguing for or against marriage as a sacrament. That passage came to mind when I was reading your post, so I wanted to get your opinion on it. Having grown up Catholic and knowing seven sacraments, I was surprised to read that five of them aren't considered sacraments in other denominations. But I'm open to considering their reasons for that, especially since I've been considering moving to the Anglican Church.

 

[Albion]

The traditional definition of a sacrament in the Catholic Church includes the conferring of Grace, the forgiveness of sins, etc. but also that there is an outward sign using physical objects and, in addition, that the ceremony was instituted by Christ.

With the "five" that Protestants do not accept as Sacraments of the Gospel, the idea of there being a physical, outward, sign is sketchy at best and it's almost impossible to argue that they were instituted by Christ himself.

Nevertheless, some of the Protestant churches, the Anglican churches included, do value these five and it's common to refer to them as "minor" sacraments" or "sacramentals" or (as above) not "Sacraments of the Gospel." In addition, while Baptism and The Lord's Supper were clearly meant for all believers, that is not the case with the other five.

 

[Paidiske]

Does Mark 10:8-9 support the idea of marriage as a sacrament?

I think in order to answer that fully, we'd have to both delve into how we understand sacraments and how we understand that passage, in some depth.

My short answer is no, but that's largely because I think we need to read Jesus' statement as a response to a specific question, and not necessarily as a response to a very different question than the one that was asked.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Crown had a character who stated, in its episode concerning the attempt by poor Princess Margaret to wed a divorced RAF officer, that the Church of Scotland, unlike the Church of England, did not regard marriage as a sacrament, and thus Margaret proposed to marry him in the Church of Scotland rather than the Church of England as a workaround, but Her Majesty said no. Whether or not this actually happened, I winced when the character made a statement to the effect that the Church of England officially counted marriage as a sacrament, when in reality, C of E and the C of S enumerate only baptism and the Eucharist as sacraments, officially (although some Anglo Catholics count all seven; I am sure if you asked someone who went to a super Anglo Catholic parish like St. Magnus the Martyr in the City of London, or All Saints Margaret Street (which is on the other side of the Thames, I think in Lambeth or Wandsworth; by the way, if someone has a link to a map showing what parts of greater London are in the Diocese of Southwark vs. the Diocese of London, that would be helpful), they might just say there were seven sacraments. But that is their view and not the view in the 39 Articles, at least.

In the US, the Anglican Province of Christ the King, which has a beautiful seminary in Oakland, St. Joseph of Arimathea, which is offering deeply discounted online courses due to Covid 19, for anyone interested, does count seven sacraments, but they are of course not in communion with Lambeth Palace.

 

[Deegie]

There are a good many Episcopalians in the U.S. who consider all seven to be sacraments. Myself included, and I'm not super Anglo-Catholic.

 

[Albion]

There are a good many Episcopalians in the U.S. who consider all seven to be sacraments. Myself included, and I'm not super Anglo-Catholic.

There are also "a good many" Roman Catholics who believe that the Eucharist only symbolizes the body and blood of Christ. Indeed, there are all sorts of people in many different denominations who hold personal beliefs that are at odds with the official beliefs of the churches to which they belong.

So when we discuss who believes what, it makes a difference what we think the question is trying to get at.