27 Sep GS 1980 art 147

GS 1980 ARTICLE 147 – Book of Praise (Liturgical Forms) – Form for the Solemnization of Marriage

A. Material – 

Agenda VIII, B, 8, 9, 21, 25.

B. Observations

• 1. In accordance with the mandate received from Synod Coaldale 1977 (Acts, Article 60, Recommendation 4), the Committee has served Synod with a Revised Form for the Solemnization of Marriage.
• 2. The Church at Barrhead requests that the opening sentence of the Mar­riage Form be changed to, “N … and N … , since your desire to be mar­ried has been duly made known and no lawful objection has been pre­sented, we may now  “
• The ground for this request is: “Since the Draft is meant to be used in a worship service and in a ceremony which is not a church service as well, we consider it desirable that the Form is usable without changes for both manners of solemnization.”
• 3. The Church at Carman requests that the “Optional Exchange of Rings, etc.” be removed from the Revised Form. The ground is that the word optional indicates that “it does not belong to the ceremony proper.”
• Carman further states, “Although there is no objection to the inclusion of the exchange of rings, if so desired by the couple, this should not be included in the Form.”

C. Considerations

• 1. The Form for the Solemnization of Marriage was singled out by Synod Coaldale as an object for revision (i.e. “shortening,” see Article 60, Inf. 12).
• Synod is now presented with a major revision along the lines of the new form presently in use in our Netherlands sister-churches. Contrary to the present Dutch Form, there is more emphasis in this revision on the seriousness of divorce and the subjection of the wife to the husband.
• 2. The request of the Church at Barrhead excludes the consistory and the congregation (from the announcement), contrary to the old Form and the decision of Synod Toronto, 1974 Acts, Article 49, that “the members of the Church marry in the Lord and that the office-bearers are to see to it that they do so.” The approbation of the congregation is required also when a marriage is solemnized in a public ceremony, since the Banns/ Announcements must be proclaimed audibly in a worship service. (see also Synod Coaldale, Article 57, Considerations 5 and 8.)
• 3. The request of the Church at Carman does not sufficiently take into account the meaning of the word “optional,” meaning that if something is to be included it should be done in the following manner. Since Carman admits that there is no objection to the inclusion of the ring ceremony itself, the phrasing may as well be left in the Form.
• 4. Under “The Profound Mystery,” the words “to the end” as not coming from Ephesians 5, should be substantiated in the margin, John 13:1.
• 5. Under “Duties in Marriage” the word, “what the Lord asks of you in mar­riage” is somewhat weak and should be changed into “what the Lord requires  “
• 6. It is not evident why the Committee in its corrected Draft has decided to remove the words “authorized by the government of this province.” These words are necessary for the minister who solemnizes the marriage does so specifically by authorization of the civil authorities who grant this right to the churches. It is this authorization which gives legal status to the marriage.

D. Recommendation

Synod decide to adopt the Revised Form for the Solemnization of Marriage, as emended by Synod.

ADOPTED