If the C of E pays for weddings....

RamiC · Monday at 5:02 AM

That will allegedly restore the position of marriage in British society....

"Amid declining marriage rates, the Centre for Social Justice, a London-based conservative think tank, has urged the Church of England to remove wedding fees for low-income couples to help make the United Kingdom a “pro-family, pro-marriage nation.”

"The CSJ’s report draws on findings from Dr. Kathleen Kiernan’s “Families and Inequalities” and Harry Benson’s “We Need to Talk about Marriage.” In 1958, fewer than 10% of children did not live with both biological parents by the time they took their General Certificates of Secondary Education. That figure rose to 21% by 1970 and reached 45% by the early 2000s, reports Church Times."

Churches should pay for weddings to promote marriage, think tank says

I am puzzled that anybody thinks that the fees for church marriage are anything to do with this situation. As if consistently making divorce easier for a hundred years or so has not made any difference, as if legalising weddings in pretty non-religious locations made no difference. Could they have simply suggested that the church could take charge of publicising the advantages of marriage, and go back to actively nurturing marriage?

How Has Divorce Law Changed Over The Years? – Legal Developments

Why did this think tank not suggest that the state and the private secular businesses that provide wedding venues pay for people's weddings?

Paidiske · Monday at 5:33 AM

In my experience, churches will generally waive fees for couples experiencing hardship anyway. I imagine it is similar in England.

I don't think people choose not to get married because of the church fee (usually only a tiny part of the expense of a wedding).

stevevw · Monday at 6:26 AM

RamiC said:
That will allegedly restore the position of marriage in British society....

"Amid declining marriage rates, the Centre for Social Justice, a London-based conservative think tank, has urged the Church of England to remove wedding fees for low-income couples to help make the United Kingdom a “pro-family, pro-marriage nation.”

"The CSJ’s report draws on findings from Dr. Kathleen Kiernan’s “Families and Inequalities” and Harry Benson’s “We Need to Talk about Marriage.” In 1958, fewer than 10% of children did not live with both biological parents by the time they took their General Certificates of Secondary Education. That figure rose to 21% by 1970 and reached 45% by the early 2000s, reports Church Times."

Churches should pay for weddings to promote marriage, think tank says

I am puzzled that anybody thinks that the fees for church marriage are anything to do with this situation. As if consistently making divorce easier for a hundred years or so has not made any difference, as if legalising weddings in pretty non-religious locations made no difference. Could they have simply suggested that the church could take charge of publicising the advantages of marriage, and go back to actively nurturing marriage?

How Has Divorce Law Changed Over The Years? – Legal Developments

Why did this think tank not suggest that the state and the private secular businesses that provide wedding venues pay for people's weddings?

Its funny as the church is appealing to the State to get more people to marry because of the benefits. You would think that if this was the case then the State itself would be promoting marriage more. They often promote what is best for health and wellbeing.

So why not promote marriage as a national campaign. If it helps the wellbeing and health of kids it seems a no brainer. You don't need the C of E for that one. Its there in the data.

Its not necessarily a church thing. Its a human thing and how its natural that humans cohabitate and make families and over time research shows having a mum and dad and stable families makes for a strong society.

Michie · Monday at 8:56 AM

From CP-

The report cites historical data showing that church weddings in 2023 "were at their lowest since records began in 1837, excluding the COVID-19 pandemic years." The think tank contends that wedding costs should not be a barrier for families that could most benefit from the protection and stability that marriage provides. It asserts that current policies favor the middle class, making marriage appear inaccessible to poorer communities.

"We are not suggesting simply taking benefits from older citizens and giving them to younger citizens. The problems we see in childhood are only partially about money," researchers wrote in the report. "The far greater change of recent years is in family stability. Money can and does support that, but it is only a part of the puzzle. Far bigger is the collapse of marriage rates. Family-structure evidence consistently shows that marriage is much more stable than cohabitation."

The researchers lament that half of children are now born to unmarried parents, a problem that is more "acute for poorer families," in which nearly half of children in lower-income households don't live with both parents by age 5 — three times that of children in middle-to-high-income households.

The group estimates the initiative would cost the Treasury no more than $43 million (£32 million), noting that the actual expenditure would likely be lower since low-income couples currently marry at lower rates. It also said removing financial barriers could help restore marriage as a stabilizing force for children and families.

The current statutory wedding fee in the Church of England is set nationally at around $765 (£567) if the couple marry in their home parish, the church’s website states. This includes the vicar's cost, use of the church, lighting, banns, a banns certificate and administrative charges.

Researchers say marriage is a public and private good, urging the church to lead efforts to reverse family instability in lower-income communities.

CSJ researcher Luke Taylor told Church Times that churches should “go further and faster” to support marriages and help reduce inequality in family outcomes.

Churches should pay for weddings to promote marriage, think tank says

Amid a declining marriage rate, the Centre for Social Justice, a London-based conservative think tank, has urged the Church of England to remove wedding fees for low-income couples to help make the

www.christianpost.com

chevyontheriver · Monday at 11:14 AM

Paidiske said:
In my experience, churches will generally waive fees for couples experiencing hardship anyway. I imagine it is similar in England.

I don't think people choose not to get married because of the church fee (usually only a tiny part of the expense of a wedding).

When I got married I was offered the possibility of assisting in tuckpointing the building in lieu of any fee. And so I did, repairing a bit of the walls of the church building.

My experience is that the fees are minimal anyway and that the bigger financial impediment is the required massive party afterwards, costing real megabucks.

chevyontheriver · Monday at 11:18 AM

RamiC said:
That will allegedly restore the position of marriage in British society....

"Amid declining marriage rates, the Centre for Social Justice, a London-based conservative think tank, has urged the Church of England to remove wedding fees for low-income couples to help make the United Kingdom a “pro-family, pro-marriage nation.”

"The CSJ’s report draws on findings from Dr. Kathleen Kiernan’s “Families and Inequalities” and Harry Benson’s “We Need to Talk about Marriage.” In 1958, fewer than 10% of children did not live with both biological parents by the time they took their General Certificates of Secondary Education. That figure rose to 21% by 1970 and reached 45% by the early 2000s, reports Church Times."

Churches should pay for weddings to promote marriage, think tank says

I am puzzled that anybody thinks that the fees for church marriage are anything to do with this situation. As if consistently making divorce easier for a hundred years or so has not made any difference, as if legalising weddings in pretty non-religious locations made no difference. Could they have simply suggested that the church could take charge of publicising the advantages of marriage, and go back to actively nurturing marriage?

How Has Divorce Law Changed Over The Years? – Legal Developments

Why did this think tank not suggest that the state and the private secular businesses that provide wedding venues pay for people's weddings?

I'm wondering if the changes to the theology of marriage (or their theology in general) might be far far more significant?

RamiC · Monday at 3:26 PM

chevyontheriver said:
I'm wondering if the changes to the theology of marriage (or their theology in general) might be far far more significant?

There have been no actual changes to the theology of marriage, just in practice tendencies to ignore the official church position, and an increasing number of very loud voices complaining about any expectation that they actually believe in it.

The church paying for weddings is not going to touch the problem at all, I think they need to decide on their position regarding the Bible, and the 39 Articles of Religion, and then defend that position out loud. If they decide to re-write the 39 Articles, they can do that, they were written by men, they are not the Bible. The essential seems to be first work out exactly what it is the church believes and why, then expect the clergy to believe it, then expect that church members either do believe it, or that they strive to do so. So yes to you about theology in general, they need coherence and unity there. The most recent arguments about who can get married seem to me to be a symptom of this problem, they are not the cause of it.

I do think that the church could make it easier for couples to afford a church sanctioned marriage, your own experience being one way, a few exceptions to the fees, pay by installments. The thing about your very valid point that it is the celebration that costs the most is that to a lot of people in the UK, that is basically what the "wedding" is. It is a party. Obviously the poorest do not throw parties they cannot afford.

RamiC · Monday at 3:43 PM

Michie said:
From CP-

The researchers lament that half of children are now born to unmarried parents, a problem that is more "acute for poorer families," in which nearly half of children in lower-income households don't live with both parents by age 5 — three times that of children in middle-to-high-income households.

The group estimates the initiative would cost the Treasury no more than $43 million (£32 million), noting that the actual expenditure would likely be lower since low-income couples currently marry at lower rates. It also said removing financial barriers could help restore marriage as a stabilizing force for children and families.

Thiese two points do not make sense do they? They are saying that if the church pays for the weddings that will cause more low income couples to get married, and then that the bill will not be very high because low income couples do not get married much.

If they are not getting married because of church fees, they will do it if there are no fees.

To actually establish the true benefit we would need to see the mental health expenses that would not exist if we were to restore some belief in what marriage is and why it matters. Even if we did have that, we need a church with some theological backbone (my moaning about that is in post #7).

Paidiske · Monday at 4:49 PM

RamiC said:
If they decide to re-write the 39 Articles, they can do that, they were written by men, they are not the Bible.

In theory this is true. In practice, I think any global Anglican agreement about change to the Articles is beyond possible at this point. Heck, we can't even agree about what standing the Articles should have.

But I don't think we need to change the Articles, to put forward a robust, healthy, life-giving theology of marriage. The difficulty is that we don't currently have a unified position on this, nor do I see that as likely, either.

RamiC · 2025-12-30T05:19:54-0600

Paidiske said:
In theory this is true. In practice, I think any global Anglican agreement about change to the Articles is beyond possible at this point. Heck, we can't even agree about what standing the Articles should have.

We will solve the disputes or we will keep on fragmenting. A church that cannot agree with itself is not going to be able to nurture marriages, and in the Church of England right now, no matter what anybody says, someone will just loudly disagree with it.

Paidiske · 2025-12-30T05:23:47-0600

RamiC said:
We will solve the disputes or we will keep on fragmenting. A church that cannot agree with itself is not going to be able to nurture marriages, and in the Church of England right now, no matter what anybody says, someone will just loudly disagree with it.

I don't know that I agree. Anglicanism has always been able to provide a broad tent - a spiritual home in which there was room for diversity of views on any number of topics - and still nurture faith and faithful living. On the other hand, attempts to enforce uniformity or conformity of views have generally ended badly...

chevyontheriver · 2025-12-30T10:01:31-0600

RamiC said:
There have been no actual changes to the theology of marriage, just in practice tendencies to ignore the official church position, and an increasing number of very loud voices complaining about any expectation that they actually believe in it.

The church paying for weddings is not going to touch the problem at all, I think they need to decide on their position regarding the Bible, and the 39 Articles of Religion, and then defend that position out loud. If they decide to re-write the 39 Articles, they can do that, they were written by men, they are not the Bible. The essential seems to be first work out exactly what it is the church believes and why, then expect the clergy to believe it, then expect that church members either do believe it, or that they strive to do so. So yes to you about theology in general, they need coherence and unity there. The most recent arguments about who can get married seem to me to be a symptom of this problem, they are not the cause of it.

Maybe the theology of marriage hasn't changed among the Anglicans, but who is allowed to become married has changed from one man and one woman to anybody and anybody. So something has changed. And that's part of much larger and wider changes. You can say the 39 Articles are still official, but they sure aren't de facto.

RamiC said:
I do think that the church could make it easier for couples to afford a church sanctioned marriage, your own experience being one way, a few exceptions to the fees, pay by installments. The thing about your very valid point that it is the celebration that costs the most is that to a lot of people in the UK, that is basically what the "wedding" is. It is a party. Obviously the poorest do not throw parties they cannot afford.

My thinking is that there is too much emphasis on one day and not enough on getting ready to live a whole lifetime. So those who can afford it have a spectacular day and then move towards their divorce.

RamiC · 2025-12-30T11:59:41-0600

chevyontheriver said:
Maybe the theology of marriage hasn't changed among the Anglicans, but who is allowed to become married has changed from one man and one woman to anybody and anybody. So something has changed. And that's part of much larger and wider changes.

No that has not happened. It is what some people want, and they are trying to get it, but they do not have it. That change would be a change to the theology. That is why I am saying that people are complaining, they are complaining that they do not have marriage between "anybody and anybody".

chevyontheriver said:
You can say the 39 Articles are still official, but they sure aren't de facto.

I did not say that they were still official, I said that "I think they need to decide on their position regarding the Bible, and the 39 Articles of Religion, and then defend that position out loud. If they decide to re-write the 39 Articles, they can do that, they were written by men, they are not the Bible."

chevyontheriver said:
My thinking is that there is too much emphasis on one day and not enough on getting ready to live a whole lifetime. So those who can afford it have a spectacular day and then move towards their divorce.

Yes, divorce is seen as a solution to dissatisfaction, or any unhappiness in a marriage. People do not try to solve their own problems or the ones in the relationship, they just solve the fact that they are in the relationship.

RileyG · 2025-12-31T22:29:01-0600

chevyontheriver said:
I'm wondering if the changes to the theology of marriage (or their theology in general) might be far far more significant?

Many people are less religious nowadays and choose to get married outside the Church. I think it's sadly becoming more common.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

If the C of E pays for weddings....

Well-Known Member

Clara bonam audax

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Clara bonam audax

Well-Known Member

Clara bonam audax

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Similar threads