www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Marrying a non-Christian

A question was posed to me about what course of action one should take when a relative chose to marry a non-Christian and a request was made to take part in a non-Christian ceremony.

The specifics are the marriage of a Christian to a Hindu where a separate ceremony involving the worship of the Fire god was involved.

Would I go and participate, was my question.

My first reaction was "absolutely not." I cannot mix Christ and the worship of spiritas outside and opposed to Christ.

The response was that I didn't sound very ecumenical. But I think of ecumenism as being an outreach in dialogue among Christians.

Thoughts?

In Christ,

BOB

Bob:

Ecumenism can sometimes refer to interreligious dialogue, although within Christian circles, it tends to refer to efforts towards restoring unity among all Christians.

As far as the ceremony, I personally would be inclined against going. However, I hope never to be put in such a position, since the decision not to go could strain or even ruin relationships within the family.

Ryan

I haven't been involved in any Hindu ceremonies, but have been to some "Christian" ceremonies that were anything but. I tend to go to keep peace among either family or friends. However, I do limit my participation to things that are so general they are harmless. While I am there, I pray for the folks present to have their eyes opened so they can see the light of Christ.

I understand that a Hindu wedding [en.wikipedia.org] essentially consists of a sacrifice (yajña [en.wikipedia.org]) to fire (agni [en.wikipedia.org]), thus constituting an act of idolatry. Therefore, it seems to me that no Christian should get married in a Hindu ceremony.

"ceremony involving the worship of the Fire god was involved."

Worship is for the one True God alone. Inter-religious dialogue is one thing but a Christian at a ceremony that worships a Hindu god is a whole new ball game, in my opinion. I would just go to the reception and if they press if further just ask them to respect your religious views.

A second question arises for me. Is it a good idea for a Christian to marry a non-Christian? I was at a Theology on Tap presentation for young adults in San Diego and the speaker, a newly ordained Roman rite Deacon, spoke on the vocation of marriage and what a good marriage was. He mentioned that the couple should be, ideally, of the same faith. I agreed with him, what does everyone else think?

Do you think the Scriptures would support attending such a function?
Stephanos I
"As for me and my house we will serve the Lord."
There can be no compromise between darkness and light, truth and error even for the purpose of keeping familiy harmony.

Christ is in our midst!!

I think I agree with all of you in this area. The whole concept makes me uncomfortable and I'm glad I have yet to deal with it.

A Catholic priest I asked about this told me it was all nothing to worry about since this worship was simply a "cultural thing." That I didn't buy. It seems to me that if an act is understood as worship by someone else and I participate in it, I may have supported the act as worship and provided a scandal to others who know of my Christian commitment.

I'm all for understanding among people of all races, religions, and ways of life, but I have to agree with Father Stephanos that my first commitment is to Christ and to Him alone. And if it means that others are offended, I'd rather offend them than Him.

BOB

Saint Paul is quite clear that the Christian is not to be "yoked" (i.e. married) to an unbeliever (i.e. a non-Christian). While these days one can easily find a compliant bishop to dispense and priest to "perform the marriage", some of us continue to doubt the reality of such a marriage.

As for "getting married" in a pagan worship ceremony, that is completely unconscionable.

Fr. Serge

Father Serge:

Father bless!!

Thank you for your input.

On another note, my daughter-in-law related to me that she had been invited to the wedding of a friend from college that turned out to be a Wickan ceremony where they invoked Satan. She said it made her feel "creepy and uncomfortable." (This happened long before she met my son and their recent marriage.)

Some of the young seem to think that some of these kinds of things--what they consider to be just something different and unique--are nothing to be concerned about. How does one react to that? I'm convinced that there is a very real spiritual danger in these things.

I admit that I told her in very strong terms that this was a real spiritual danger and that I'd have gotten up and walked out. Friendship may be one thing, but I used your Pauline example in relation to a friendship that involves someone who is a committed witch.

In Christ,

BOB

Theophan,
Your initial reaction sounds pretty Orthodox to me.

I note you are Roman Catholic from your profile and I don't know for sure what their rules are on this. However the Orthodox position is pretty much "NO." Marriage outside the church is tantamount to self excommunication. While the Orthodox Church does occasionally (out of economy) bless religiously mixed marriages, it only does so if the non-Orthodox party is at least Christian and has received some sort of Trinitarian baptism. Thus Orthodox Christians may not marry non-Christians including Jews and Mormons.

As for attending the service where your relative would apostatize himself, I can not tell you what your church would say. I can only say that I would have a very hard time attending in good conscience. By attending, your very presence is likely to be seen as a tacit blessing to the affair. If your absence were likely to cause a serious family quarrel then attending might be the lesser of evils. But participation would be out of the question.

Personally I would send my regrets with a nice card and a separate note explaining that my priest forbade me from attending. (In my case there would be no need to even ask my priest. I already know what his answer would be.)

Unfortunately, I know about more than one situation where the non-Christian spouse gets baptised for the sake of the wedding, never planning on attending or practicing, with the complacency of the spouse (and possible the cleric) - then the couple do the wedding ceremony of the non-Christian religion as well...

Not recommended, not what I would do, nor would I feel comfortable attending.

Michael,
My take on that is that they would both be excommunicated. If the non-Christian spouse gets baptized (even if its pro-forma) participation in pagan religious rites is still apostasy. The only difference being that now the spouse is as guilty as the originally Christian party to the marriage. The end result is slightly worse than the original scenario.

If you are going to commit apostasy, just do it. Don't drag someone else into the Church just to have him/her commit such a heinous sin on top of the sacrilege of being baptized under false pretenses.

In ICXC
John

To keep the peace in the family, I would just go without any inhibitions. I am bound only to the One I am saved by, so I know only one God, and that is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is by that name Jesus, that I am saved. No other.

However, given that half my family are not Christians, and despite my desire for them to see the light of Christ, I don't see any issue with being there to see a cousin of mine get married. Better that than no religion at all. At least there's some significance there.

Anyway, being half-Chinese, I still bow three times in front of my parents - nothing religious there, but a symbol of filial piety. I've done that at my grandparents' grave and my grandparents' memorial tablets - again, nothing religious, but just a Chinese tradition of filial respect. For all that they've done for me, I think it is stupid not to honour them.

I think that is very nice and very appropriate. God bless you.

In Turkey, the hands of the older generation are kissed and then the forehead is brought to the hand which is being kissed, almost as if receiving a physical blessing from the contact. I think that is very nice.

Americans do not respect the elderly enough. In Greece, you see elderly people everywhere and they are of all different physical conditions. No one treats them, even in the biggest cities, as 'pariahs' that shouldn't be seen.

In the U.S., I have always felt that only the most physically fit elderly are 'acceptable' to be seen in the streets.

Another thought which I have is how nice it is that the Obamas have the grandmother living with them in the White House to be there for the girls when they cannot. This is something common in Europe, and in the U.S. is only common to certain minorites. That is a shame. We have the biggest houses in the world, yet the elderly are supposed to live alone rather than with their children and grandchildren, even when they are in excellent health. Grandparents offer children a sense of family, of belonging, of family and generational continuity, of security, and of unconditional love, which no non-family member can ever bestow upon children.

Once when crossing a big avenue in Manhattann arm in arm with my then 70 year old grandmother, who was not in the greatest health (she had heart disease), a stranger stopped me and said how nice and unusual it was to see a young woman (I was in my early twenties) actually walking with her grandmother.

I rest my case.

Alice, stepping off my soap box!! (hehehe)

One reason you see elderly people everywhere in Greece--indeed, throughout Europe--is Europe is aging rapidly, a consequence of Europeans failing to have babies. As a result, the proportion of people over the age of 65 is approaching 33%, and will soon be over 50%.

In the past, the only elderly were the fit elderly. The unfit elderly died quickly, and were usually immobile for the last days or weeks of their lives. Today, medical technology keeps people going well beyond the point at which they would have died even two or three decades ago.

As to why the elderly were so valued in ancient societies, I would say rarity had something to do with it. When the life expectancy is forty, when half of all people died before they reached thirty, someone in his fifties was old, and someone in his seventies was positively ancient. Such people were also valued because, in order to become ancient, one had to be (a) smart; (b) wise; and (c) lucky. Old people were depositories of wisdom and societal memory because that's how they got to be old; as such, they were an asset to society.

Today, with life expectancy at 86 years and increasing, old must be defined upward, perhaps to that 90th percentile, which would be people in their late eighties and up. Those people know some real secrets about life, having lived it and triumphed over its challenges. Now that I am in my fifties, I begin to realize that I occupy a position in society that formerly would have been filled by someone in his thirties. And people in their seventies are filling places that formerly were filled by people in their fifties.

I no longer see much of a correlation between age and wisdom, because, frankly, it's far too easy to live long these days. I know some very wise people in their twenties, some very foolish ones in their seventies. Perhaps one reason why the nominally elderly are not given the respect they used to get is, first, that there are far more of them than previously; and second, that far too many of them fail to act their age or to demonstrate anything approaching the wisdom of ages.

On the other hand, many of the extremely old impress me by being sharp as tacks and full of trenchant observations about the world.

Stuart, off his soapbox.